refueling ban?????

[MAX_THRUST]

Is it that hard for Ferrari to get it right they are gonna ban it?

Or are they going to use this as an ootunity to bring in new fuels and ask the teams to be more economical with there fuel. Ie the less fuel carried the faster the cars will go, but will they finnish?

Whole host of stuff here for everyone to argue about.

[ArrowsFA1]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71398

I've long thought that refuelling should be banned, but that tyre changes should continue to be allowed.

It seems FOTA are looking at a wide range of possible changes. It doesn't mean all will be adopted, but it's good that these things are being discussed in a positive way among the teams :up:

[MAX_THRUST]

I think it would be a shame to ban the refueling. I think the teams should be more concerned with reducing the number of people in the pitts. Ie one person per tyre. Two people refueling and air jacks.

Less people in the pitt lane has to be safer, and I think in years to come we will look back and think we were crazy....

[V12]

Yes, yes, yes, yes, a million times yes.

Link to Autosport story about this, and also a few other things proposed: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71398

If anyone gets the chance (if you don't remember them first-hand) watch footage of races in the late 80s and early 90s when refuelling was last banned.

Not only was overtaking far more common (although there may be aerodynamic reasons for that), the races themselves were much more complex. Someone like Alain Prost would sometimes hang back in 7th or 8th place conserving fuel and tyres, then come into play towards the end of the race and often win (I think this was more during the turbo/fuel consumption era though).

Pit stop strategy will still play a part, but it will all be about the tyres instead, and will hinge much more on a driver's feel and intuition than the strategists on the pit wall (fuel load is easier to measure by telemetry than tyre wear). Do you drive like a madman, race away into the distance but require an extra pitstop for tyres, or do you conserve your tyres and hope to make the time back when your opponent pits? Drivers who have the skill of conserving their tyres to avoid a pit stop while still maintaining a decent pace will effectively buy themselves 20-25 seconds over the course of a race.

Also, the sport is increasingly safety-obsessed. It is a matter of opinion whether they have taken the safety thing too far or not and both viewpoints are valid, but I don't see how they can justify emasculating circuits, run-off areas and such in the name of "safety" while still allowing 10 potential bombs to be operated in the pits during the race.

Yes refuelling post-94 has a great safety record, but so does the sport in general (nobody has been killed in an F1 race on the track since the 3rd race of refuelling's introduction), and given the massive safety drive in terms of run-offs, barriers, and the cars themselves, is refuelling a potential hazard we really need, even if the chances of a pitlane disaster are 0.00001%?

I'm not sure if I agree with the idea to shorten races though, the race length is perfectly fine the way it is. They managed to do 300km races without refuelling from 1984-1993, so the cars will need a much bigger fuel tank, it's been done before, let the designers deal with it :)

Finally, there has been talk about bringing a competitive element to Fridays. Would it be really that painful to just go back to an hour of free running on both Friday and Saturday, with the fastest times set in either session making up the order for the grid?

I tried explaining the current qualifying format to my girlfriend on Saturday while we were watching it, and as a new viewer it made absolutely no sense to her, and as a long-time fan, I was unable to justify it to her. I told her how qualifying used to work back in the good old days and she said "Yeah, that makes a lot more sense." Go figure.

[wedge]

They managed to do 300km races without refuelling from 1984-1993, so the cars will need a much bigger fuel tank, it's been done before, let the designers deal with it :)


But cars running out of fuel at the end of the race was very common. There were many occasions when cars suddenly slow down just so they could finish the race.

[Valve Bounce]

Revival of Nash and Mobil Economy Run

[Daniel]

Have it like le mans where you can't work on the car while it's being refuelled. You won't have these sorts of incidents happening.

[ioan]

I think it would be a shame to ban the refueling. I think the teams should be more concerned with reducing the number of people in the pitts. Ie one person per tyre. Two people refueling and air jacks.

Less people in the pitt lane has to be safer, and I think in years to come we will look back and think we were crazy....

Banning refueling would do exactly that cut the number of people around the car during the pitstops by at least 2!

[Robinho]

Have it like le mans where you can't work on the car while it's being refuelled. You won't have these sorts of incidents happening.


also doing this would double the amount of time cars are in the pits (while we're at it reduce the number of people per wheel and the speed of the fuel flow), therefore increasing the penalty for having to pit, giving the opportunity for drivers and teams to gain by trying to make tyres and fuel last longer

[Daniel]

That's certainly something to be looked at. You could even make it so only one corner on each side can be serviced each time so you have even less mechanics.

[Dave B]

I don't want to see pit-stops banned but it would be good to see them made longer so that teams could seriously consider a no-stop strategy.

[ioan]

That's certainly something to be looked at. You could even make it so only one corner on each side can be serviced each time so you have even less mechanics.

Better let the driver do it all by himself! Or maybe helped by the team manager! :D

[gravity]

It seems that the pitstops are a highlight of the race for the viewers, so they've even gone so far as to force cars to use both compounded tires in the race which means they have to pit at least once.

[ioan]

It seems that the pitstops are a highlight of the race for the viewers, so they've even gone so far as to force cars to use both compounded tires in the race which means they have to pit at least once.

Forcing them to use both compounds has nothing to do with the existence of the pit stops. It is rather being done because Bridgestone doesn't want to produce tires that aren't used.
Anyway given the compounds used now in F1 it's impossible to make the tires last the whole distance.

[jerrybruce]

Since I am not a proponent of shortening the already too short races, I would like to see the following:

Qualifying - time the practice sessions. Fastest times are used no matter when posted and regardless of fuel load since that will be open. You put in however much you want for the session.

Race - Only 1 fuel stop. If you want to stop 20 times for tires, so be it, but only one for fuel. If someone wants to try doing the entire race without a stop it should be allowed.

Points - award 1 point for fastest lap during the race, 1 point for most laps led. Restructure the points so that a win is worth much more than a second place finish (at least 4 points spread, if not more).

One final note, if you are going to show these changes in the best light, you need to make changes to the cars that will promote more passing. It would defeat the above changes if a fully loaded, slower car is able to hold up a faster car. That leads me to another rule change: If you are lapping slower than a car trying to get past you, you should be forced to more over or suffer a penalty drive through. All this would do is turn what used to be sporting conduct into an enforceable rule.

[ioan]

That leads me to another rule change: If you are lapping slower than a car trying to get past you, you should be forced to more over or suffer a penalty drive through.

I can't agree with transforming F1 racing into f1 rallying.

[christophulus]

Pit stop strategy will still play a part, but it will all be about the tyres instead, and will hinge much more on a driver's feel and intuition than the strategists on the pit wall (fuel load is easier to measure by telemetry than tyre wear). Do you drive like a madman, race away into the distance but require an extra pitstop for tyres, or do you conserve your tyres and hope to make the time back when your opponent pits? Drivers who have the skill of conserving their tyres to avoid a pit stop while still maintaining a decent pace will effectively buy themselves 20-25 seconds over the course of a race.

I'm not sure if I agree with the idea to shorten races though, the race length is perfectly fine the way it is. They managed to do 300km races without refuelling from 1984-1993, so the cars will need a much bigger fuel tank, it's been done before, let the designers deal with it :)


I'm in favour of banning refuelling, it would several advantages from my point of view. The issue of some drivers conserving their tyres more than others would be very interesting, and the increased safety has to be a bonus.

From another point of view, it'd fit in quite nicely with the FIA's new clean 'n' green policies that they're pushing for, because all of the teams would surely try to increase the efficiency of their engines so they could run the race with less fuel onboard? Alternatively it may split the field - a big engine and a big fuel tank for some, and a much more efficient and lighter engine from others, although this would mean the minimum weight requirements would need looking at. No refuelling would also get rid of that stupid safety car rule!

Also, do we really need 20 people servicing each car? (or however many it is nowadays - that may be completely wrong). One person on each wheel, two on jacks, one with a lollipop and one with the extinguisher. Easy enough!

[V12]

I don't agree with being forced to let a faster car through when you are racing for position, different strategy or no. I'm still struggling with the whole idea of blue flags moving lapped cars out of the way. The likes of Senna made negotiating traffic an art form, it was another skill that formed the set of a complete racing driver. As long as a car doesn't DANGEROUSLY keep another at bay (be they racing for position or on different laps), then it should be no problem.

I'm waiting to see what effect the new 2009 aero regs have on overtaking, but at this stage I have to be optimistic that there will at least be an improvement.

While I agree that banning or restricting refuelling stops needs to go hand-in-hand with making natural on-track overtaking more possible, since 1994 many drivers have developed the mentality of "waiting for the stops" - where an overtake may be just about possible, but they understandably don't want to risk it all going wrong. If they can't "wait for the stops", they may be required to take a few more risks in trying to get around another car.

[hmmm - donuts]

I would like to see each pit stop restricted to either fuel or tyres - not both. At the moment when refuelling takes around 6 - 8 seconds, the tyre change is effectively a freebie.

[schmenke]

Am I the only one who would prefer to have 50 mechanics during the pitstops? More mechanics means faster pit stops, resulting in more on-track racing :mark:

Banning refueling would result in cars wallowing around like pigs for the opening laps of the race... Defeats the purpose of motor racing IMO.

If the sport wants to portray a greener image, then perhaps they can impose a limit on the total amount of fuel available to teams on race day. Teams could pit all they want and manufacturers would be forced to develop fuel-efficient engines. Drivers wouldn't have to race with a full bladder of fuel, and could manage consumption by running lean.

[gshevlin]

I want to see refuelling banned, so that the teams have to build cars with a decent fuel capacity, and drivers have to drive to optimize their tyre wear throughout the race. Currently F1 races operate as a series of loosely connected sprints. I would prefer to see tyre changes banned also except on obvious safety grounds, but I suspect that the TV action level would drop too far if that were to be enforced, unless the new rules to increase overtaking on the track make a significant difference. Right now I only watch about 50% of the races because most of them are highly processional.

[Nikki Katz]

Is this a cost cutting measure then? Surely the ideas being kicked around to ban refuelling and shorten the races will only have a minor affect on the amount of money spent. Surely most of it is blown on complex aerodynamics etc.

I'm too young to remember F1 without refuelling, but I think that with the current regulations and even with the 2009 specs once the teams have had fair opportunity to counter the affect will just result in no overtaking whatsoever at many races, especially at the increasing number of street circuits.

I'm really dead against shortening the races. This appears to just be so that they don't have to radically redesign the cars, thus increasing costs. But presumably even when absolutely full the current cars can't last for longer than an hour. The only race they should really shorten (and probably will do) is Singapore, which was probably just due to a miscalculation of the average speed on the circuit anyway.

[Rollo]

Not only was overtaking far more common (although there may be aerodynamic reasons for that), the races themselves were much more complex. Someone like Alain Prost would sometimes hang back in 7th or 8th place conserving fuel and tyres, then come into play towards the end of the race and often win (I think this was more during the turbo/fuel consumption era though).

And also lose on the odd occasion as Mr Bounce kindly points out:

Revival of Nash and Mobil Economy Run

Ah yes, no refuelling. The days of the Shell Mileage Marathon are back. Let us look back kindly and revisit some of those more memorable moments.

1985 San Marino GP
5 cars ran out of fuel and Prost who crossed the line first was disqualified because his car was underweight by 2kg.

1986 San Marino GP
A year later and in almost a repeat of the year before, 4 cars ran out of fuel, and Prost who won weaved feverishly across the track in an effort to slosh fuel around inside the tank.

1986 German GP
Prost had led every lap bar one but his car ran out of fuel. He tried to push the car but it was too far. Keke Rosberg also ran out of fuel and so McLaren scored 3 points for the day with cars that failed to finish.

The man who Nelson Piquet called "an uneducated blockhead", our Nige of the red 5 (praise be), said of non-refuelling that "it wasn't really racing".

[V12]

OK I'll concede that point, but still this was during the turbo era and when cars were limited to a certain amount of fuel by the regulations.

By 1993 with normally aspirated engines (as we have currently) and fuel only limited by however big you could make your fuel tank, I don't remember running dry ever being an issue. I would also guess that the engine technology of today compared to 15 years ago would have improved fuel consumption a bit.

[ShiftingGears]

Shorter races is a dumb idea. I don't see anything wrong with refuelling, besides the fact that some teams fail to do it properly.

[Ranger]

You remove another variable and races become more predictable.

Considering F1 teams want more overtaking in 2009, this will be an interesting juxtaposition. IMO it isn't necessary, but worth looking at.

[Miatanut]

If anyone gets the chance (if you don't remember them first-hand) watch footage of races in the late 80s and early 90s when refuelling was last banned.

Not only was overtaking far more common (although there may be aerodynamic reasons for that), the races themselves were much more complex. Someone like Alain Prost would sometimes hang back in 7th or 8th place conserving fuel and tyres, then come into play towards the end of the race and often win (I think this was more during the turbo/fuel consumption era though).


Have it like le mans where you can't work on the car while it's being refuelled. You won't have these sorts of incidents happening.


I'm in favour of banning refuelling, it would several advantages from my point of view. The issue of some drivers conserving their tyres more than others would be very interesting, and the increased safety has to be a bonus.

From another point of view, it'd fit in quite nicely with the FIA's new clean 'n' green policies that they're pushing for, because all of the teams would surely try to increase the efficiency of their engines so they could run the race with less fuel onboard? Alternatively it may split the field - a big engine and a big fuel tank for some, and a much more efficient and lighter engine from others, although this would mean the minimum weight requirements would need looking at.

Look at all the great possibilities!

I'm in favor of making refueling a slow process and not having engine rules beyond 'no unobtainium' and no minimum weight. You would have teams going for the big engine which would dominate at Spa and Monza, and teams that would go for the small engine which would get around twisty tracks faster. Some would try the no stop approach, some one stop, some two stops. The reason all the cars look the same and nobody can pass is because the cars are over-regulated. Open the rules up a bit and there would be a lot more passing, and the top of the championship chart would change more from race-to-race.

[Roamy]

get over it - you would have to carry a massive amount of fuel or make the race a joke - or maybe have two or three races on race day. If you double the mileage I wonder what that would do to power. The system is fine as it is and adds excitement to what could be very boring. I used to be against refueling but unless they ban tire changes to then it is a bad idea.

[ioan]

Am I the only one who would prefer to have 50 mechanics during the pitstops?

Where the hack would you put that much people, around an F1 car there isn't enough place!

Still Ferrari would benefit from having 30 guys taking the decision when to release the car! :D

[ioan]

And also lose on the odd occasion as Mr Bounce kindly points out:


Ah yes, no refuelling. The days of the Shell Mileage Marathon are back. Let us look back kindly and revisit some of those more memorable moments.

1985 San Marino GP
5 cars ran out of fuel and Prost who crossed the line first was disqualified because his car was underweight by 2kg.

1986 San Marino GP
A year later and in almost a repeat of the year before, 4 cars ran out of fuel, and Prost who won weaved feverishly across the track in an effort to slosh fuel around inside the tank.

1986 German GP
Prost had led every lap bar one but his car ran out of fuel. He tried to push the car but it was too far. Keke Rosberg also ran out of fuel and so McLaren scored 3 points for the day with cars that failed to finish.

The man who Nelson Piquet called "an uneducated blockhead", our Nige of the red 5 (praise be), said of non-refuelling that "it wasn't really racing".

Easy solution they should have made those fuel bladders a tad bigger. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to come to this conclusion.
I bet that with today's knowledge they would do way better.
And reducing the fuel consumption would be an improvement in the so called "environment friendly" image over the "green" tires!

[ArrowsFA1]

Easy solution they should have made those fuel bladders a tad bigger. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to come to this conclusion.
Bet they wished they'd thought of that :laugh:

Teams were only allowed to carry a limited amount of fuel. Having a bigger tank to put that same amount of fuel in would have made no difference.

[Daniel]

I sometimes think that when I hear the ITV jokers talking about one car having a bigger fuel tank that the others.

[Mark]

You could have a rule which says that all cars must start the race with x litres of fuel on board, enough to get to the end of the race if they drive slowly, but they could refuel if they wanted.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with refuelling, but I'd like to get rid of the 'race fuel' element of qualifying, it really adds nothing. Let teams choose how much fuel they want to carry at the start of the race.

[ioan]

Bet they wished they'd thought of that :laugh:

Teams were only allowed to carry a limited amount of fuel. Having a bigger tank to put that same amount of fuel in would have made no difference.

Than they should have reduced the consumption. No big deal either at this level of engine conception.

[ArrowsFA1]

Than they should have reduced the consumption. No big deal either at this level of engine conception.
Well I'm sure the engine manufacturers were doing what they could, and the drivers were driving always aware of their fuel consumption, but that's not really racing, it's a fuel economy run and that's what many mid-80's races were.

[ioan]

Well I'm sure the engine manufacturers were doing what they could, and the drivers were driving always aware of their fuel consumption, but that's not really racing, it's a fuel economy run and that's what many mid-80's races were.

So it needed more brains from the driver. And some driving knowledge too, trying to carry more speed through the corner in order to need less acceleration on the straights and thus reduce consumption levels. Excellent, I want that back in F1. Also 1 race tires should come back now that we have only one supplier.

[wedge]

So it needed more brains from the driver. And some driving knowledge too, trying to carry more speed through the corner in order to need less acceleration on the straights and thus reduce consumption levels. Excellent, I want that back in F1. Also 1 race tires should come back now that we have only one supplier.

It depends on frequency. I've been a bit turned off from ICS road course races because it's mainly come down to fuel strategy. You can argue its the same in NASCAR but I mostly admire that its down to the drivers' foot doing the job and not relying on engine maps etc.

[schmenke]

Where the hack would you put that much people, around an F1 car there isn't enough place!...

Sorry, I didn't mean that literally; I meant that, within reasonable limits of safety, I see no reason to restrict the number of mechanics. I do not support regulations intended to slow down pit stops.

[V12]

The fuel-economy era of F1 was ONLY during the final days of the turbos when a maximum fuel limit was specified (or rather the maximum size of fuel tank was specified, which led to things like teams freezing fuel to pack more of it in).

I don't remember ANY early 90's F1 race being an "economy run". And that's the sort of thing we'd be returning to if refuelling was banned.

It would also bring the added benefit of drivers actually having to adapt to changing handling characteristics as the fuel load decreased over the course of a race.

[wedge]

Senna ran out of fuel on the last lap of the 1991 British GP whereby the infamous scene of Mansell picking up Senna for the ride back to the pits.