2026 Chinese Grand Prix - Shanghai, March 13-15

[AR3-GP]

No. Overtaking aids are to enable actual racing in an era where low fuel consumption, lack of refueling, high reliability and monstrously quick cars that produce incredible amounts of dirty air has made racing entirely processional in absence of overtaking aids.

Overtaking aids do not take away from the engineering challenge of F1, nor do they take away from the quality of racing, in fact I believe they improve both, while also increasing viewer enjoyment.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think Trulli trains display driver skill or the engineering talent behind the cars any better than overtake mode does. But if you believe that no overtaking aids, resulting in Trulli trains is ”pure racing” that displays driver skill better than the alternative, you are entitled to that opinion.

Personally I don’t want all F1 grands prix to be pure quali battles like Monaco, but if you believe anything else is a gamified, false form of racing developed for the lowest common denominator, then sure.

Personally I will still prefer overtake mode to nothing at all, and based on the two races we have seen, I would currently pick it over DRS. Clearly the drivers enjoy the ”yoyo” battles as well, even if they are caused in large part by the new engines being… not the greatest.

I don't have a problem with the concept of an electrical boost mode (or DRS). Indycar has a boost mode for overtaking. My issue is that F1 have devised it in a "steal from peter to pay paul" fashion. The driver does not become wealthier when they use this overtake mode. They only steal from their future self and therefore become a sitting duck on the next straight. This illusion that drivers are being clever going back and forth against one another is built into the rules and does not require any intelligence. You know the guy who just passed you will be a sitting duck because the only way to pass is to use energy less efficiently.

Let overtake mode work without penalizing the driver on the next straight (like Indycar). Find a way to do that. That would solve my issue with the regs (and eliminate superclipping/lico in qualy). Then we know that if the driver who was overtaken manages to re-overtake, that he has done it on merit and not because the energy usage regulations invented a yo-yo game every time someone tries to do an overtake.

[bananapeel23]

You know the guy who just passed you will be a sitting duck because the only way to pass is to use energy less efficiently.

Let overtake mode work without penalizing the driver on the next straight (like Indycar). Find a way to do that. That would solve my issue with the regs (and eliminate superclipping/lico in qualy). Then we know that if the driver who was overtaken manages to re-overtake, that he has done it on merit and not because the energy usage regulations invented a yo-yo game every time someone tries to do an overtake.

We’re straying perilously close to off-topic with this debate, so we might need to stop it soon.

That said, isn’t the 0.5 MJ extra meant to accomplish exactly that?

Isn’t boost also generally a pretty efficient way of deploying, since you get to keep the high top speed for the remainder of the straight, enabling you to super clip earlier om the straight, and thus allowing you to regen for longer.

Obviously you will lose a bit of SOC compared to your opponent by using boost, but the 0.5 MJ, along with the inherent harvesting advantages of a higher top speed enable you to recover a large part of that deficit, causing you to only become a sitting duck if you position your car poorly on the apex/in the following traction zone or overuse the boost. In that case yoyoing is the natural result, but I would say that it’s more fun than DRS, where sloppy blow-by passes were encouraged, since they were lower risk and caused a smaller loss of race time than wheel to wheel battling. (Which is the type of racing everyone likes)

DRS actively discouraged wheel to wheel racing, overtake mode allows you to either dump it all on the straight, or to deliverately underharvest to overtake on slower parts of the track and make it back in the following corners (at least on power rich tracks where hitting the cap isn’t that challenging). Doing that requires a lot of wheel to wheel racing, thoughtful car positioning, opportunism and strategic choices about where to harvest. That is pretty cool in my opinion, at least compared to DRS blow by passes.

[AR3-GP]

You know the guy who just passed you will be a sitting duck because the only way to pass is to use energy less efficiently.

Let overtake mode work without penalizing the driver on the next straight (like Indycar). Find a way to do that. That would solve my issue with the regs (and eliminate superclipping/lico in qualy). Then we know that if the driver who was overtaken manages to re-overtake, that he has done it on merit and not because the energy usage regulations invented a yo-yo game every time someone tries to do an overtake.

We’re straying perilously close to off-topic with this debate, so we might need to stop it soon.

That said, isn’t the 0.5 MJ extra meant to accomplish exactly that?

Isn’t boost also generally a pretty efficient way of deploying, since you get to keep the high top speed for the remainder of the straight, enabling you to super clip earlier om the straight, and thus allowing you to regen for longer.

Obviously you will lose a bit of SOC compared to your opponent by using boost, but the 0.5 MJ, along with the inherent harvesting advantages of a higher top speed enable you to recover a large part of that deficit, causing you to only become a sitting duck if you position your car poorly on the apex/in the following traction zone or overuse the boost too much.

The overtake mode isn't efficient because it pushes the car into a speed range where the drag (a parasitic energy consumer) is the highest. If they were allowed to use overtake mode in a qualy lap, they would never use it. It's simply pointless to deploy energy at such a high speed compared to what you get out of it by deploying it at lower speeds, earlier on a straight at a different corner exit.

Also, allowing them to harvest an extra 0.5MJ when there already is not enough energy in the brake zone (most efficient harvesting), is the work of a genius... We know this is useless because in Australia, Leclerc and Russell couldn't stay in front of one another on the run to T11 if they used the overtake mode before T9.

I also think we shouldn't get carried away because one of the biggest factors that affects the racing is the low downforce level that occurs at the beginning of every regulation cycle. 2022 had a lot of overtaking. They will add downforce and following will get worse and worse like every other regulation set. There's nothing special about these regulations that will prevent that.

We had back and forth for multiple laps of the race lead in the first 2 races of 2022 (Bahrain 2022 and Jeddah 2022). Absolute pandemonium at Silverstone 2022.

[bananapeel23]

The overtake mode isn't efficient because it pushes the car into a speed range where the drag (a parasitic energy consumer) is the highest. If they were allowed to use overtake mode in a qualy lap, they would never use it. It's simply pointless to deploy energy at such a high speed compared to what you get out of it by deploying it at lower speeds, earlier on a straight at a different corner exit.

Also, allowing them to harvest an extra 0.5MJ when there already is not enough energy in the brake zone (most efficient harvesting), is the work of a genius... We know this is useless because in Australia, Leclerc and Russell couldn't stay in front of one another on the run to T11 if they used the overtake mode before T9.

It doesn’t matter if deploying down the straight is laptime inefficient as long as it isn’t inefficient enough that drivers abstain from doing it. If it was completely stupid to do, drivers wouldn’t be doing it, but they are.

Racing another car isn’t, and was never efficient for lap time, and it shouldn’t be. It should be about strategy, car positioning and using the resources you have available to get the upper hand over your opponent.

And again. On energy rich tracks you can still use the energy advantage of overtake mode in other ways, for example by opportunistically abstaining from harvesting, or manually deploying in a slow part of the track to send it up the inside. You can then make that energy back by lifting slightly earlier in the following corners, or alternatively by positioning the car in a way that forces the car you just passed to deploy inefficiently.

Yes, the 0.5 MJ is useless on power starved tracks because you cant harvest enough, but that doesn’t make overtake itself a bad system. It just shows that the engines themselves aren’t suited for F1 if they want to keep the high harvesting caps, which anyone with a functional brain and knowledge of F1 already knows. The 9MJ harvesting cap was CLEARLY set based on calculations assuming either an MGU-H or front axle harvesting.

If you do the napkin math, the average 85 second lap will place the total harvesting capacity with the current MGU-K and either system remarkably close to 9 MJ.

[hollus]

...a "steal from peter to pay paul" fashion...

Well... it is an engineering competition. Everything is a compromise. That much should be obvious.
You wanna be low drag? Eat your low downforce.
Want donforce? Have a serving of drag.
Need front downforce? Have low energy air on your floor.
Need rear downforce? Have an understeering car.
Heat up your tires quickly? Enjoy your short tire life.
Want a larger fuel tank? There goes your slim cover and COG.
Want a long wheelbase? Enjoy the overweight.

But all those are "cool" designer compromises.

Wanna undercut in a pit stop? Enjoy your looooooong last stint in worn tires. Clever!
Wanna divebomb in that corner? 50% chance of crash, 25% chance of flat spot, 25% chance of a pass, better don't have a car just behind you before that corner. Brave!
Wanna follow closely? Enjoy your overheating tires. Racey!
Wanna have cold tires and patiently wait and pass in 10 laps with fresher tires? Back off and loss the oportunity of benefiting from a micro-mistake. Wise!

But those are all "cool" racer strategies.

Wanna steal from Peter by deploying in that straigth, pay Paul by passing and... yes, Peter will be very poor. Boooo. And if you are a very clever driver and carefully choose where to pay Paul just so that Peter can get rich again before Paul loses position? Nah, no one saw if you did that, the engine did not go broooom, the tires did not smoke, meeeh. It was only luck why he stayed ahead.

I really, really wonder if this would be taken so badly without the engine noise (so you wouldn't hear it the pitch go down).

I fell in love with F1 in 1995, when I discovered that that "very little" happening was actually an enoumously complicated chess game at racing speeds. And I often watch TV without sound. Probably that plays a role in finding this OK.

[Dee]

...a "steal from peter to pay paul" fashion...

Well... it is an engineering competition. Everything is a compromise. That much should be obvious.
You wanna be low drag? Eat your low downforce.
Want donforce? Have a serving of drag.
Need front downforce? Have low energy air on your floor.
Need rear downforce? Have an understeering car.
Heat up your tires quickly? Enjoy your short tire life.
Want a larger fuel tank? There goes your slim cover and COG.
Want a long wheelbase? Enjoy the overweight.

But all those are "cool" designer compromises.

Wanna undercut in a pit stop? Enjoy your looooooong last stint in worn tires. Clever!
Wanna divebomb in that corner? 50% chance of crash, 25% chance of flat spot, 25% chance of a pass, better don't have a car just behind you before that corner. Brave!
Wanna follow closely? Enjoy your overheating tires. Racey!
Wanna have cold tires and patiently wait and pass in 10 laps with fresher tires? Back off and loss the oportunity of benefiting from a micro-mistake. Wise!

But those are all "cool" racer strategies.

Wanna steal from Peter by deploying in that straigth, pay Paul by passing and... yes, Peter will be very poor. Boooo. And if you are a very clever driver and carefully choose where to pay Paul just so that Peter can get rich again before Paul loses position? Nah, no one saw if you did that, the engine did not go broooom, the tires did not smoke, meeeh. It was only luck why he stayed ahead.

I really, really wonder if this would be taken so badly without the engine noise (so you wouldn't hear it the pitch go down).

I fell in love with F1 in 1995, when I discovered that that "very little" happening was actually an enoumously complicated chess game at racing speeds. And I often watch TV without sound. Probably that plays a role in finding this OK.

There's a chess game and there is what we have now which is an engine deployment championship;

Practice: The engine learns the deployment map that the software has said is the best for the circuit. The driver is instructed to drive to this deployment map to train the engine for qualifying.

Qualifying: There is no room for the driver to deviate from this deployment map based on their own feel for the conditions as the engine will lose power.

Race:

* Driver ahead loses power, driver behind overtakes. Driver now ahead loses power, driver behind re-overtakes.
* Driver lico's at multiple sections of the lap for every lap of the race to gain power for the boost & overtake buttons they need to pass the driver ahead.
* Driver engineers tell the drivers where they need to lico during the race to gain the most amount of energy for deployment.

F1 is now a computer game. The engineers are the ones at the controls, the driver is the avatar and the car is the RPG.

You put this aero with last years engines - perfection

What we have now is machine vs engineers not machine vs driver and that is utter crap and needs to be changed.

[FittingMechanics]

Overtake is not the problem imo. I think it’s a pretty cool way of replacing DRS with something more interesting. The issue is that the engines can’t generate enough electrical power without superclipping and LiCo. If harvesting up to the 8.5 MJ limit with only braking/via MGU-H was no problem, then overtake mode would be praised as the clear improvement over DRS that it is. The regulations are flawed, but overtake mode as an overtaking aid is, on the whole, a really good system.

This is the crux of the issue. If we had bigger batteries and more powerful MGU-K but got the all the energy from MGU-H and braking (with LiCo/superclip banned) these rules would look great. I am sure that we'd still get many people complaining that it is a "mario kart formula" as it's not what they are used to, but realistically any serious complaint would be gone (lico/super clip).

I don't have a problem with the concept of an electrical boost mode (or DRS). Indycar has a boost mode for overtaking. My issue is that F1 have devised it in a "steal from peter to pay paul" fashion. The driver does not become wealthier when they use this overtake mode. They only steal from their future self and therefore become a sitting duck on the next straight. This illusion that drivers are being clever going back and forth against one another is built into the rules and does not require any intelligence. You know the guy who just passed you will be a sitting duck because the only way to pass is to use energy less efficiently.

Let overtake mode work without penalizing the driver on the next straight (like Indycar). Find a way to do that. That would solve my issue with the regs (and eliminate superclipping/lico in qualy). Then we know that if the driver who was overtaken manages to re-overtake, that he has done it on merit and not because the energy usage regulations invented a yo-yo game every time someone tries to do an overtake.

You mention IndyCar. IndyCar has the same system but it is spread out throughout the race. So instead of having 8 MJ that you can use throughout the lap however you want, in IndyCar you have 200 seconds over race distance. If you turned 8 MJ into laptime, that's about 22 seconds per lap, for F1 race of 50 ish laps that about 1000 seconds of "push to pass". Effectively IndyCar system that you are apparently fine with allows the drivers to "stick a fork in their hand" as well, if you use your 200 seconds earlier in the race you are exposed in later stages. They are doing the same thing, but instead of seeing consequences on the same lap they suffer the consequences much later (when their "overuse" is punished). There is no benefit to IndyCar system other than allowing for less overtakes because these push to pass differences need a long time to materialize.

You are also wrong to say "overtake mode" steals from your future self. Theoretically you can still use your 8 MJ in exactly the optimal way (just as you would in clean air), but then use the extra 0.5 MJ that you can harvest in a way that is used to overtake. So drivers can use this in exactly the way you want to. Not sure if they are doing it right now as we don't have enough data, but it is not impossible that this becomes "meta" and drivers stop going off optimal deployment map as they realize it is better to be more patient. This could be the way Russell overtook Ferrari's in China, he wasn't rushing and once he got through he could pull away.

[AR3-GP]

You mention IndyCar. IndyCar has the same system but it is spread out throughout the race. So instead of having 8 MJ that you can use throughout the lap however you want, in IndyCar you have 200 seconds over race distance. If you turned 8 MJ into laptime, that's about 22 seconds per lap, for F1 race of 50 ish laps that about 1000 seconds of "push to pass". Effectively IndyCar system that you are apparently fine with allows the drivers to "stick a fork in their hand" as well, if you use your 200 seconds earlier in the race you are exposed in later stages. They are doing the same thing, but instead of seeing consequences on the same lap they suffer the consequences much later (when their "overuse" is punished). There is no benefit to IndyCar system other than allowing for less overtakes because these push to pass differences need a long time to materialize.

Indycar Push-to-pass (P2P) just increases the engine power. So it is laptime booster without consequences (just like DRS was). The overtake mode in F1 is something else entirely. A system where you pay a greater debt to get the privilege of temporarily appearing in front of your competitor with an energy deficit that makes you look like an idiot. Since there is no more slipstream, the drivers have no choice but to play the game and hope you can make the other guy fall off racetrack before the next straight.

So I don't like this comparison that you are making between them. It's not really correct. They are not stealing anything from themselves when they use P2P. Not in the way that overtake mode forced you to use your limited energy allocation in an inefficient way. Whether P2P is saved up or used at the start, it doesnt change how it works. You just go faster without consequence.

This system would be far more efficient to use if the overtake mode created power difference at 50km/h not 290km/h. Then drivers would not need to use so much energy to make an overtake, and would not get stuck in manufactured yo-yo duels. If the losing drivers comes back in front on merit, great. It shouldn't be simply because the other guy was forced to use his energy in an inefficient way and now is a sitting duck. That's what is meant by "artificial". The other guy has done nothing special to get back in front. He simply waits for the pre-arranged energy collapse of the driver who uses overtake mode.

[venkyhere]

The overtake mode isn't efficient because it pushes the car into a speed range where the drag (a parasitic energy consumer) is the highest. If they were allowed to use overtake mode in a qualy lap, they would never use it. It's simply pointless to deploy energy at such a high speed compared to what you get out of it by deploying it at lower speeds, earlier on a straight at a different corner exit.

Also, allowing them to harvest an extra 0.5MJ when there already is not enough energy in the brake zone (most efficient harvesting), is the work of a genius... We know this is useless because in Australia, Leclerc and Russell couldn't stay in front of one another on the run to T11 if they used the overtake mode before T9.

It doesn’t matter if deploying down the straight is laptime inefficient as long as it isn’t inefficient enough that drivers abstain from doing it. If it was completely stupid to do, drivers wouldn’t be doing it, but they are.

Racing another car isn’t, and was never efficient for lap time, and it shouldn’t be. It should be about strategy, car positioning and using the resources you have available to get the upper hand over your opponent.

And again. On energy rich tracks you can still use the energy advantage of overtake mode in other ways, for example by opportunistically abstaining from harvesting, or manually deploying in a slow part of the track to send it up the inside. You can then make that energy back by lifting slightly earlier in the following corners, or alternatively by positioning the car in a way that forces the car you just passed to deploy inefficiently.

Yes, the 0.5 MJ is useless on power starved tracks because you cant harvest enough, but that doesn’t make overtake itself a bad system. It just shows that the engines themselves aren’t suited for F1 if they want to keep the high harvesting caps, which anyone with a functional brain and knowledge of F1 already knows. The 9MJ harvesting cap was CLEARLY set based on calculations assuming either an MGU-H or front axle harvesting.

If you do the napkin math, the average 85 second lap will place the total harvesting capacity with the current MGU-K and either system remarkably close to 9 MJ.

When the computer/system/AI/whatever has already decided for itself, where to deploy and where to recharge, the driver is given a 'button press' to override the algorithm briefly, and use up 0.5MJ. To which, the algorithm will react and recharge more, within the same/next lap. The trouble is, the driver is not given a similar button press to override the algorithm and given a 'recharge more' to override the algorithm briefly and recover the 0.5MJ at his discretion. This is the 'core' of the issue. This doesn't allow the driver to 'avoid being a sitting duck' after making his overtake in the previous lap.
The other 'wider net' problem with the regs itself, is having the same storage of battery as in previous regs, but allowing faster/larger-chunk discharge/recharge to provide more than twice peak electrical power w.r.t previous regs, whilst reducing the peak ICE power to 2/3rds. In other words, "I will give you $66 instead of $100 that I used to give you before, but instead of operating a lending business capped at $1 per day, now you have to operate the lending business capped at $3 per day"

[FittingMechanics]

Indycar Push-to-pass (P2P) just increases the engine power. So it is laptime booster without consequences (just like DRS was). The overtake mode in F1 is something else entirely. A system where you pay a greater debt to get the privilege of temporarily appearing in front of your competitor with an energy deficit that makes you look like an idiot. Since there is no more slipstream, the drivers have no choice but to play the game and hope you can make the other guy fall off racetrack before the next straight.

So I don't like this comparison that you are making between them. It's not really correct. They are not stealing anything from themselves when they use P2P. Not in the way that overtake mode forced you to use your limited energy allocation in an inefficient way. Whether P2P is saved up or used at the start, it doesnt change how it works. You just go faster without consequence.

This system would be far more efficient to use if the overtake mode created power difference at 50km/h not 290km/h. Then drivers would not need to use so much energy to make an overtake, and would not get stuck in manufactured yo-yo duels. If the losing drivers comes back in front on merit, great. It shouldn't be simply because the other guy was forced to use his energy in an inefficient way and now is a sitting duck. That's what is meant by "artificial". The other guy has done nothing special to get back in front. He simply waits for the pre-arranged energy collapse of the driver who uses overtake mode.

Push to pass does steal from your future self because it takes away P2P that you could use strategically in the future. If a driver uses 200s in first half of the race then they are a sitting duck in the second half. Just like an F1 driver that uses 8 MJ in first half of the lap will be a sitting duck in the second half. The only difference is timescale at which this happens. You are fine with IndyCar because the cause and the effect happens on scale of 30 laps. This is in fact a downside. I predict that more series will change their overtake systems to mirror this F1 one (perhaps with less electrical power so it is not as pronounced).

One more thing, Overtake mode has two aspect. One of it is overriding of the allowed power at super high speed. I believe this is almost useless as no one will be using a lot of power at that speeds, it is more efficient to deploy at lower speeds and 99% of the time they will be doing that.

But the second aspect of overtake mode (increase recharge by 0.5 MJ) is a laptime booster without consequences. If you don't want to use 0.5 MJ you don't have to, if you do want to use it then it is a laptime booster but it doesn't come with the need to harvest a bit more, so it is not completely skill less. Unlike DRS to use this 0.5 MJ you need to be aware of it and recover it. Then you can use it to overtake.

If you keep your deployment ideal then you won't be a sitting duck on the next straight as your 0.5 MJ would allow you to either close to gap or overtake (just like DRS).

Key part of your complaint is that the drivers that "go outside the ideal deployment" can overtake but in doing so they are hurting their laptime or their defense on the next straight. I am not sure this is valid as this was always true. To make an overtake you usually need to make some sacrifices, either dive bomb which means you have lower apex speeds and worse traction out of the corner, or you go outside which means you are on dirtier part of the corner and are at risk of being pushed wide. Or if you push your tires to get close, you overheat your tires and fall back afterwards, either immediately or through higher tyre deg. There are many cases like this. Focusing on one aspect of energy fighting where if drivers do it in a bad way they can suffer the consequences is wrong. We want the fights to have consequences, this is not a hot lap formula.

[bananapeel23]

The overtake mode isn't efficient because it pushes the car into a speed range where the drag (a parasitic energy consumer) is the highest. If they were allowed to use overtake mode in a qualy lap, they would never use it. It's simply pointless to deploy energy at such a high speed compared to what you get out of it by deploying it at lower speeds, earlier on a straight at a different corner exit.

Also, allowing them to harvest an extra 0.5MJ when there already is not enough energy in the brake zone (most efficient harvesting), is the work of a genius... We know this is useless because in Australia, Leclerc and Russell couldn't stay in front of one another on the run to T11 if they used the overtake mode before T9.

It doesn’t matter if deploying down the straight is laptime inefficient as long as it isn’t inefficient enough that drivers abstain from doing it. If it was completely stupid to do, drivers wouldn’t be doing it, but they are.

Racing another car isn’t, and was never efficient for lap time, and it shouldn’t be. It should be about strategy, car positioning and using the resources you have available to get the upper hand over your opponent.

And again. On energy rich tracks you can still use the energy advantage of overtake mode in other ways, for example by opportunistically abstaining from harvesting, or manually deploying in a slow part of the track to send it up the inside. You can then make that energy back by lifting slightly earlier in the following corners, or alternatively by positioning the car in a way that forces the car you just passed to deploy inefficiently.

Yes, the 0.5 MJ is useless on power starved tracks because you cant harvest enough, but that doesn’t make overtake itself a bad system. It just shows that the engines themselves aren’t suited for F1 if they want to keep the high harvesting caps, which anyone with a functional brain and knowledge of F1 already knows. The 9MJ harvesting cap was CLEARLY set based on calculations assuming either an MGU-H or front axle harvesting.

If you do the napkin math, the average 85 second lap will place the total harvesting capacity with the current MGU-K and either system remarkably close to 9 MJ.

When the computer/system/AI/whatever has already decided for itself, where to deploy and where to recharge, the driver is given a 'button press' to override the algorithm briefly, and use up 0.5MJ. To which, the algorithm will react and recharge more, within the same/next lap. The trouble is, the driver is not given a similar button press to override the algorithm and given a 'recharge more' to override the algorithm briefly and recover the 0.5MJ at his discretion.

Sure, the super clipping algorithm is automatic and there isn't a way to override the super clipping algorithm to harvest more. However, there is indeed a "recharge more" button. It's called the throttle pedal. If you lift it earlier, you will transition from super clipping to lift and coast earlier, regenerating at a rate of 350 kW instead of 250 kW, thus harvesting more energy.

If they allow 350 kW super clipping, that won't stay the case, but for now, you can still do it at the cost of some lap time. If done strategically, it won't leave you a sitting duck unless you also run out of harvesting allowance.

[venkyhere]

It doesn’t matter if deploying down the straight is laptime inefficient as long as it isn’t inefficient enough that drivers abstain from doing it. If it was completely stupid to do, drivers wouldn’t be doing it, but they are.

Racing another car isn’t, and was never efficient for lap time, and it shouldn’t be. It should be about strategy, car positioning and using the resources you have available to get the upper hand over your opponent.

And again. On energy rich tracks you can still use the energy advantage of overtake mode in other ways, for example by opportunistically abstaining from harvesting, or manually deploying in a slow part of the track to send it up the inside. You can then make that energy back by lifting slightly earlier in the following corners, or alternatively by positioning the car in a way that forces the car you just passed to deploy inefficiently.

Yes, the 0.5 MJ is useless on power starved tracks because you cant harvest enough, but that doesn’t make overtake itself a bad system. It just shows that the engines themselves aren’t suited for F1 if they want to keep the high harvesting caps, which anyone with a functional brain and knowledge of F1 already knows. The 9MJ harvesting cap was CLEARLY set based on calculations assuming either an MGU-H or front axle harvesting.

If you do the napkin math, the average 85 second lap will place the total harvesting capacity with the current MGU-K and either system remarkably close to 9 MJ.

When the computer/system/AI/whatever has already decided for itself, where to deploy and where to recharge, the driver is given a 'button press' to override the algorithm briefly, and use up 0.5MJ. To which, the algorithm will react and recharge more, within the same/next lap. The trouble is, the driver is not given a similar button press to override the algorithm and given a 'recharge more' to override the algorithm briefly and recover the 0.5MJ at his discretion.

Sure, the super clipping algorithm is automatic and there isn't a way to override the super clipping algorithm to harvest more. However, there is indeed a "recharge more" button. It's called the throttle pedal. If you lift it earlier, you will transition from super clipping to lift and coast earlier, regenerating at a rate of 350 kW instead of 250 kW, thus harvesting more energy.

If they allow 350 kW super clipping, that won't stay the case, but for now, you can still do it at the cost of some lap time. If done strategically, it won't leave you a sitting duck unless you also run out of harvesting allowance.

What's the point of LiCo in the straight, if you want to avoid being a sitting duck for overtakes ? Of course I know lifting is the easiest 'recharge'. But we are not talking about that, are we ? There has to be a button to provide 'extra recharge' in slow windy bits of the track where there isn't physical space for the chasing guy to execute an overtake (unless there is wheel banging). Don't come back saying 'that button is called downshift'. What's preventing FIA from incorporating a 'driver choosable, algorithm overridable' button for recharging, just like for deploying ?

[bananapeel23]

When the computer/system/AI/whatever has already decided for itself, where to deploy and where to recharge, the driver is given a 'button press' to override the algorithm briefly, and use up 0.5MJ. To which, the algorithm will react and recharge more, within the same/next lap. The trouble is, the driver is not given a similar button press to override the algorithm and given a 'recharge more' to override the algorithm briefly and recover the 0.5MJ at his discretion.

Sure, the super clipping algorithm is automatic and there isn't a way to override the super clipping algorithm to harvest more. However, there is indeed a "recharge more" button. It's called the throttle pedal. If you lift it earlier, you will transition from super clipping to lift and coast earlier, regenerating at a rate of 350 kW instead of 250 kW, thus harvesting more energy.

If they allow 350 kW super clipping, that won't stay the case, but for now, you can still do it at the cost of some lap time. If done strategically, it won't leave you a sitting duck unless you also run out of harvesting allowance.

What's the point of LiCo in the straight, if you want to avoid being a sitting duck for overtakes ? Of course I know lifting is the easiest 'recharge'. But we are not talking about that, are we ? There has to be a button to provide 'extra recharge' in slow windy bits of the track where there isn't physical space for the chasing guy to execute an overtake (unless there is wheel banging). Don't come back saying 'that button is called downshift'. What's preventing FIA from incorporating a 'driver choosable, algorithm overridable' button for recharging, just like for deploying ?

Most corners are not flat. Lifting a tiny bit before you brake, but not so early that you end up at risk of an overtake is how you do that.

Overtaking aids are not meant to be instant "I win" buttons. They are meant to encourage racing and strategic use of your resources.

In relation to your last sentence. Do the regs even state that you can't have an algorithm override button? Does the on-throttle harvesting need to be entirely controlled by an algorithm? If there isn't anything preventing it, I'd imagine that most teams already have a manual super clip button on the wheel, since not having it would be idiotic, even if LiCo would likely be the preferred option in 90% of corners.

[Vinyl Lap]

I see several comparisons to IndyCar's push-to-pass. Remember that IndyCar does not allow push-to-pass during qualifying. That particular aid or boost is only for the race. And also remember that push-to-pass is also not used on ovals. It is purely a street and road course overtaking tool. I've been watching IndyCar/CART/ChampCar since the late 90s, and although I'm not really a fan of contrived "Mario Kart" style boosts, push-to-pass is the only version I have grown to respect. It is totally in the driver's interest to know when to use it and how much of it to use.

Yes, I suppose it can be seen as a similar situation to the current F1 overtake mode, but remember that even when a driver has a large amount of push-to-pass left against a driver in front with none, an overtake is certainly not guaranteed. IndyCar still places a heavy emphasis on fuel mileage and the ability to refill at pit stops. Races are not all guaranteed one-stoppers. Some drivers, like Scott Dixon, can sometimes coerce their tyres to go a much longer way without using all of their push-to-pass.

hollus mentioned that they began watching F1 in 1995 when it seemed like a high-speed chess game, and I am very similar in that I started watching F1 a little later (1997-8). IndyCar still retains that feeling of chess, with tyre and fuel strategies playing out over a 100-lap race. Push-to-pass is an added novelty, but it is only one very small piece of the puzzle, in my opinion.

[PlatinumZealot]

The commentators were having trouble keeping up with the deployment-lottery-based track positions. Mr. Shouty, can’t remember his name, went in and out of moments of self-awareness. Coulthard and Palmer doing their best optimism attempts through clenched teeth and forced grins.

Loved the battles between Lecler and Hamilton.

I remember some teams in the past didn't allow none of that

"battles"

It was deployment lottery. Same reason why Russel and Antonelli swap spots back and forth.

We'll see how the season progresses but it illustrates how driver & aero have become less relevant in this formula. If McLaren can keep their cars on track I expect we'll see the same between Norris and Piastri.

Maybe it's seems like a lottery to you because you don't understand it...