The Installation Lap is a weekly Substack column dedicated to helping Americans develop a deeper appreciation for Formula 1.
In the intricate ballet of Formula 1 racing, precision takes center stage. The metrics of this dynamic spectacle are millimeters, not inches; fractions of seconds, not full beats. The stakes are so high that a hefty wristwatch can be a millstone, dragging your car toward the rear of the grid. The world of F1 is one of obsessive focus, a battle waged over the minuscule slices of time and space that can determine victory or defeat.
Such extreme attention to detail creates an environment that requires almost monastic dedication. Yet for the spectator, it can make comprehending the intricacies challenging. When a driver remarks, with a whiff of resignation, "They're just so much quicker than us right now," a casual viewer might be forgiven for wondering how significant a lead of 0.125 seconds can be. But in the universe of F1, this hair's breadth difference could be the line between triumph and oblivion. Teams wage relentless wars for these milliseconds, which is why F1 pit-stops are rehearsed relentlessly.

One of the many beguiling elements of this supercharged competition is race strategy. Crafting and executing an effective racing strategy—a dark art as cryptic as it is crucial—can be the difference between champagne and real pain.
Tire management, as we explored in TIL #2, lays the groundwork for racing strategies. Teams must continually ask: Which tires should we start on? How long will they last? Can we push their limits even further? But managing tire life can also lead to periods of seemingly slow progress during races, as drivers carefully preserve their tires rather than pushing them to their limits. Tire conservation is not why people tune in.
Pirelli, F1’s tire supplier, plays a key role in this process, selecting the tire compounds for each race and providing teams with estimates of tire lifespan. It's no surprise, then, that simulations form a key part of teams' strategic preparation, based on this data and their own internal analyses. They devise optimal plans for each race, adjusting and reacting in real-time to the unpredictable events that invariably unfold on race day.

However, this intense planning does not shield teams from the unexpected—echoing Mike Tyson's famous quip: "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." Teams must continually adapt their strategies to whatever mayhem is unfolding in a given race, from on-track incidents to the capricious weather of a city like Monaco clinging to a Mediterranean cliffside, for example.
The complexity of Formula 1 strategy can be overwhelming, so let's step back to consider its basic elements. Much of the data from this example is drawn from Chain Bear. If you’re not a follower, Chain Bear has a brilliant YouTube channel where he has spent years distilling down the complexity of F1 into lovely, animated videos. His channel is a terrific resource, I recommend taking a look when you get a chance.
Let's imagine a ten-lap race with two tire options: a soft tire that lasts 5-6 laps and produces lap times of 80 seconds, and a super-soft that lasts 3-4 laps and produces lap times of 75 seconds, with a pit stop costing us about 25 seconds. With these variables, we can create a simple racing strategy, such as running soft tires for five laps, pitting, and then running another set of softs for the remaining laps. An alternate strategy could be to run the super-softs for 4 laps, pitting, and run a new set of super-softs for 3 laps, pitting again, and then run a third set of super-softs to the end. Which is the better strategy? We’ve got a one-stop that gives us a race time of 825 seconds and a two-stop that gives us a race time of 800 seconds. Voila, our two-stop is 25 seconds faster. Sounds straightforward, right?
However, we need to remember tires degrade over time and take time to heat up. They operate at their peak when new, and slowly decline as the race progresses. And by F1 rules, drivers must use two different compounds during a race. So, if we stretch our race to 20 laps, how does this alter our strategy?
If we extend our theoretical race to 20 laps, we might then adopt a conservative strategy, starting on the super-soft tires for six laps, then pitting and running a set of medium tires to the end. Or we could opt for an aggressive strategy, starting on the super-softs for six laps, pitting to switch to soft tires for eight laps, and then pitting again to revert to the super-softs for the remaining laps.
The conservative approach might result in an 857-second race, while the aggressive one could take 864 seconds. So why would a team choose the slower strategy? Anticipating disruptions such as safety cars, red flags, etc., could change the game—extending tire life or providing an advantage in pace following a race restart. Not to mention that diving in the pits under safety car conditions can reduce pit stop time loss because the other cars are circulating at a much lower speed.
Our straightforward examples here only scratch the surface of F1 strategy, omitting countless factors like fuel loads, temperature variations (both ambient and track temperature are considered), and the relative performance of a team’s direct rivals.
Despite this complexity, some teams, such as Mercedes and Red Bull, excel at making these strategic decisions, while others often stumble, either misjudging situations or faltering on execution - if you’re a regular reader of The Installation Lap, then you know exactly who I’m thinking of here.
A solid strategy and flawless execution can mean points and champagne. Conversely, poor strategy, even with a fast car, can result in frustration, disappointment, despair, a plague of locusts, and a thousand years of darkness. As Monaco's recent race demonstrated, strategy and execution in F1 are so vital that it would have been preferable to be Esteban Ocon in the Alpine, not Sergio Perez, despite Red Bull's incredible dominance this season. That is how important strategy and execution are in F1.