While Formula 1 is going through one of its most debated regulatory crises in recent years, another championship is offering an unexpected example of balance between spectacle and technical purity. Super Formula, with its own limitations and clever innovations, is suddenly becoming a laboratory worth observing closely.
Motegi as a mirror: when strategy matters more than overtaking
The long break imposed on Formula 1 has opened up a rare window: other championships have had the opportunity to breathe, to showcase themselves, and to attract attention. Super Formula seized this moment with a double-header at Motegi which, despite featuring limited overtaking, demonstrated a level of strategic depth that many fans feel is currently missing in Formula 1.
The fluctuating pace of Toshiki Oyu compressed the field, allowing outsiders such as Nirei Fukuzumi and Luke Browning to break into the leading positions. It was not a festival of overtakes, but rather an exercise in race reading, pace management, and the ability to interpret opportunities as they emerged.
For some, it served as an antidote to the so-called “yo-yo” Formula 1, often criticized for artificial overtaking and dynamics that feel increasingly manufactured. And yet, even Super Formula is not immune to the eternal dilemma: how to balance sporting integrity with entertainment value.
The OTS dilemma: necessary, imperfect, inevitable
Considered one of the purest categories thanks to identical cars, stable tyre performance, and the absence of DRS, Super Formula still relies on a push-to-pass system: the Overtake System (OTS).
A paradox? Perhaps. But for many, including engineer Ryan Dingle, it is a necessary evil.
The Japanese single-seaters lack the top speed of Formula 1 machinery and do not benefit from sufficiently long straights to fully exploit slipstreaming. Without OTS, overtaking would be almost impossible. However, the system is not without flaws: drivers use it both to attack and to defend, creating stalemate situations in which both activate OTS simultaneously and effectively cancel each other out.
The roll hoop lights no longer flash, but engineers now monitor everything via team radio. A step forward? That depends on who you ask.
There are those who would like to introduce restrictions for the race leader, others who advocate incentives for earlier use, and some who even support a return to refuelling and longer races. However, the promoter JRP appears determined to maintain the current format, also to avoid making life more complicated for new teams entering the series.
Tyres, degradation and a balance that works better than it seems
Reigning champion Ayumu Iwasa identifies another weak point: the tyres.
“The Yokohama is too easy,” he said. Greater degradation would create performance differences, open up new strategic scenarios, and increase overtaking opportunities. The new asphalt at Motegi has made everything even more linear, reducing degradation and therefore limiting attacking possibilities.
And yet, despite these limitations, Super Formula is growing: larger crowds, more teams, and a 24-car grid reminiscent of the golden era of Formula Nippon. Sacha Fenestraz, who has experience in Formula E and as a Formula 1 simulator driver, summed it up effectively: the series is not perfect, but it is the one that has currently found the best balance.
Super Formula is not a model to copy, but it is certainly a championship worth watching. It has its flaws, its compromises, and its debatable solutions. But it also possesses a level of technical clarity and regulatory consistency that Formula 1, at this moment in time, is struggling to rediscover.
Leave a Reply