No pitting for fuel next year? bye, bye most excitement

[markabilly]

So I read that the cars will not be allowed refuelling pit stops as one of the new rule changes?
True?
If so, a quick stop for tires (4 seconds or so) means even less passing opportunity and more boring races....

and with the new standard tire rules, why not just require no tire changes either?

It would seem with only one manufacturer making all tires, they should/can make the tires hard enough to last long enough without worrying about the competition building something stickier, soooooo??

that away, I can watch the start to see who gets a substantial lead in the first few laps and not even need to watch again until the end of the race to see who broke down and lost out....sad ain't it

[EuroTroll]

I disagree completely.

Refuelling was a totally pointless addition to the game when it was introduced (1994, was it?) and it adds nothing to the spectacle, I think.

Getting rid of it, on the other hand, adds a lot (of what we used to have in the good old days). Drivers actually having to manage tyres, not going flat out all the time with no penance. Cars behaving totally differently at the end of the race, as compared to the beginning. Completely different strategies among teams, depending on how their cars use their tyres.

That's the stuff! :up:

An old example, this, but remember when the uncompetitive Leyton House cars of Ivan Capelli and Mauricio Gugelmin ended up leading 1-2 at the French GP of 1990? A dry race. Just because they didn't pit for tyres at all, while others did.

Bring back the good times! :up:

In fact, I'd cancel all the changes made to sporting regulations since 1994. It was just so much better then! Including qualifying.

[leopard]

Refueling pitstop is not only to add fuel into the tank whenever it is used up, but it is comprehensive strategy implemented for respective race the whole weekend starting from qualifying session as it might contribute to determine starting grid, how many laps drivers can use the fuel before entering pitstop, how many pitstops either it is conventional or extreme which is less or more than normal pitstops.

Refueling is another loophole for teams whose the closest approach of their accuracy will take more advantage especially for teams whose engine power is not superbly superior.
I think refueling is something to tell us cleverness of teams and drivers reading different situation will need different strategy.

Without mandatory pitstop to change the tyres which means will use super hard compound usable for the whole race have a risk with it that they will not give enough grip considered safe. It doesn't seem to be applicable, if it has to be in effect compulsively, I think the current system is a game involving higher intelligence quotient. imo.

[V12]

In fact, I'd cancel all the changes made to sporting regulations since 1994. It was just so much better then! Including qualifying.

I completely agree!

No refuelling, multiple tyre compounds, no mandatory option tyre rubbish, no race fuel qualifying, just keep it simple!

[Sonic]

Disagree with you markability - f1 was a way better without tanking up. I think it was Estoril '93 when shumi stayed out on worn tyres to win - beating way faster cars in the process.

Also with the huge fuel tanks these cars will need the weight distribution will be all messed up and we'll see way more oversteering moments than even this year.

[markabilly]

you guys miss my point---in the good old days, there was actually passes on the track, not passes while one car pitted and so forth.

Now there is still very little passing and when it happens and there is a bump, potential penalty time.......might as well ban on track passes as well as pit stops

I do miss the good old days that "pitted" driver against driver rather than engineers against engineers and who "pitted" best.

That was real racing, but until wings are banned or very severely limited, carbon brakes are dumped.....well

Hence the perceived(by rulemakers) need for making a car run on both hards and soft compounds in the same race, so as to mess with handling and thereby create artificial excitment and competition--maybe they should keep pit stops but vary the amount of fuel that can be put in the car....one stop 8 secs, and two stops for four seconds.....and the team has to do the three stops

oh and then add the dp reality show, and I think they have the making of a big hit in the tv ratings when they broadcast all races on TV, all of which from third world countries http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74731

as soon there will be only monaco in europe

[wedge]

You're living in a timewarp.

F1 is far more intricate these days.

[markabilly]

You're living in a timewarp.

F1 is far more intricate these days.
true but "intricate" is another way of saying highly technical, hence boring with appeal only to fellow techies and no one else....
and if so intricate, why the need to have all these "artifiical enhancers" of weird qualifying, soft/hard tires and etc etc...

[V12]

I just think there needs to be less artificial complications and gimmicks all round, just let the racing flow. It worked for over a century so I honestly don't see why it needed changing. Sadly F1 is all about the "show" and less about the "sport" these days :(

[chuck34]

If you get rid of re-fueling there will be even less passing on track. Why was Alonso 2nd in qual last week? Because he didn't have any fuel onboard. That means he would of had to stop very early on and get a good lead at the start. It would have been exciting to watch, if it hadn't rained.

Now you take away fueling and all the cars will have pretty much the same amount of fuel on board. That means Alonso would have started mid pack at best. Now you say that he will manage his tires better and be there at the end? RUBBISH! The Brawns are fast BECAUSE they take care of their tires. Same with the other "good" teams.

Bottom line is, if you take away re-fueling it will be a Brawn 1-2 in qual (with the odd Red Bull squeeking in) and no one will pass anyone the entire race.

I agree though that getting rid of some of the "gimmicks" would be nice. And a good place to start would be KERS and the "option" tire. KERS seems to be going away by the teams own decisions (although I haven't heard what they are doing this weekend). And I would keep the "option" tire, but make it actually optional, ie you don't have to use it unless you want to.

Now I've drug this way off topic, sorry.

[Hawkmoon]

The biggest change will be the shift in focus of fuel loads from qualifying to the race, where it bloody well belongs! At the moment fuel load has more impact on qualifying than the race.

The drivers will have to manage their cars as they get lighter and quicker but their tyres get worn and slower. Should be good!

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the teams have to pick a tyre compound before the race? I seem to remember teams having to choose between speed and durability in their tyre choices. Some teams would pick softer compounds and go for more stops whilst others would go the harder route and either 1 stop or not stop at all.

[markabilly]

I just think there needs to be less artificial complications and gimmicks all round, just let the racing flow. It worked for over a century so I honestly don't see why it needed changing. Sadly F1 is all about the "show" and less about the "sport" these days :(
as to the former, I will drink to that
:beer:

as to the latter, dont forget podium ceremony, proper hats with sponsor names, and whose anthem gets played....

[wedge]

true but "intricate" is another way of saying highly technical, hence boring with appeal only to fellow techies and no one else....
and if so intricate, why the need to have all these "artifiical enhancers" of weird qualifying, soft/hard tires and etc etc...

Conversely, thanks to refuelling fuel is now ballast and all we mostly get is pit passing and no overtaking on the track.

Why overtake the car ahead if you know you've got more fuel and do some fantastic in and out laps.

[DexDexter]

In fact, I'd cancel all the changes made to sporting regulations since 1994. It was just so much better then! Including qualifying.

Yep everything was better before 94, those Osellas and other backmarkers used to be at least 5 seconds a lap slower than the quick guys, plus we had a great point system were you only counted 11 out of 16 races, some teams had 100 horsepower more than others, the races were boring with not a lot of lead changes... in one year one car had semi-automatic gearbox active suspension, ABS, traction control etc, while others still had a stick shift etc.... I don't know maybe we've been watching a different series. I started watching in 82.

[V12]

Yep everything was better before 94...

"those Osellas and other backmarkers used to be at least 5 seconds a lap slower than the quick guys"

Teams like that added character to the sport. Since the demise of Minardi and Super Aguri, the grid had had a much more "sterile" feel to it.

"plus we had a great point system were you only counted 11 out of 16 races"

I agree with you here, that was bad, but in all honesty was it any worse than Bernie's proposed "medals"? Both systems over-complicate things in an attempt to reward wins greater, just increase the points differential from 1st to 2nd (as they did in 1991) and be done with it, I say.

"some teams had 100 horsepower more than others"

Whereas now we have "equalised" "homologated" engines, identical in cylinder configuration, vee angle, etc. bit of a turnoff really. And large horsepower differential leads to more overtaking. Besides, what the customer V8s lacked in horsepower they made up for in agility, fuel efficiency, and when in the back of, say a 1990 Tyrrell or Newey-designed 1988 March, a good chassis.

"the races were boring with not a lot of lead changes..."

Not really, I've watched a few old VHS of season reviews and what-have-you, if a car behind was quicker, overtaking was generally easier than it is now. If someone ran away with the race that's because he and his team deserved to, which is the whole point of a competition after all.

"in one year one car had semi-automatic gearbox active suspension, ABS, traction control etc, while others still had a stick shift etc...."

Technical variety is good, IMO of course.

"I don't know maybe we've been watching a different series. I started watching in 82."

'91 for me, I actually envy you, from what I've heard it was even better back then!

I think this is one of those "agree to disagree" moments though :beer:

[SGWilko]

If you get rid of re-fueling there will be even less passing on track. Why was Alonso 2nd in qual last week? Because he didn't have any fuel onboard. That means he would of had to stop very early on and get a good lead at the start. It would have been exciting to watch, if it hadn't rained.

But, the strategy was deliberate to minimise the use of the soft tyre. If everyone knows they only get one tank of fuel, then you really have to earn your money. Manage tyres, manage fuel consumption etc.


Now you take away fueling and all the cars will have pretty much the same amount of fuel on board. That means Alonso would have started mid pack at best. Now you say that he will manage his tires better and be there at the end? RUBBISH! The Brawns are fast BECAUSE they take care of their tires. Same with the other "good" teams. Depends on the fuel consumption of the differing engines, and the efficiency of KERS. That would make it much more interesting.

[UltimateDanGTR]

If so, a quick stop for tires (4 seconds or so) means even less passing opportunity and more boring races....



oh yes, because theres hardly any on track action because of the new rule changes which makes cars impossible to overtake and races unimaginably dull like the 1st 3 races of this year..... :rolleyes:

my my, how boring.... :rolleyes:


(detect sarcasm there?)

[EuroTroll]

Yep everything was better before 94, those Osellas and other backmarkers used to be at least 5 seconds a lap slower than the quick guys, plus we had a great point system were you only counted 11 out of 16 races, some teams had 100 horsepower more than others, the races were boring with not a lot of lead changes... in one year one car had semi-automatic gearbox active suspension, ABS, traction control etc, while others still had a stick shift etc.... I don't know maybe we've been watching a different series. I started watching in 82.

Hey, I just said that the sporting regulations were better, didn't I. ;) And by '94, all the races counted for the championship. ;)

[Easy Drifter]

Of course in Mad Max's never ending quest to cut F1 costs this idea of having enough fuel to run the entire race makes perfect sense. Yeah right. Now the teams will have to produce a totally different car next year and that won't cost anything, unlike allowing development of the current cars with a stable rules package.
That after this year's rules that forced completely redesigned cars.
Oh wait, we will shorten the races so the current cars can be used. After all who wants to see a race last more than 30 to 45 minutes.

[chuck34]

But, the strategy was deliberate to minimise the use of the soft tyre. If everyone knows they only get one tank of fuel, then you really have to earn your money. Manage tyres, manage fuel consumption etc.

Depends on the fuel consumption of the differing engines, and the efficiency of KERS. That would make it much more interesting.

You don't think that teams are managing tires and fuel now?

I'll probably keep saying this all season long, but the reason that the Brawns are so quick is because of their tire management. The DDD only adds a bit. Their use of TIRES is what has put them on top.

What will change if you have to run a whole race on one tank of fuel? The teams that are fast now (particularly on the super soft tires) will still be fast. And there will be LESS difference in strategy between teams (ala Alonso in China).

Efficiency of KERS you say. Well now we're talking. If the FIA/F1 would allow teams to use as much or as little KERS power as they wanted or could develop then we'd see some good stuff. Limiting them to 80HP for 6.6 sec is just dumb. Most teams have figured out that they would rather have the ~80lbs to place where they want it than the small amount of "boost" they get each lap.

[truefan72]

rubbish Idea by the FIA, they need to stop tinkering around with the rules so much.

leave refueling in, it is a worthwhile elemnt to the race and does add a bit of itnruige and excitment. This has been true for 50 years and i don;t know why it needs tampering with.

i am already on the verge of leaving the sport adn more arbitrary rule changes don't help imo

[F1boat]

To me this is another idiotic decision, which will add to the medals farce.

[DexDexter]

"those Osellas and other backmarkers used to be at least 5 seconds a lap slower than the quick guys"

Teams like that added character to the sport. Since the demise of Minardi and Super Aguri, the grid had had a much more "sterile" feel to it.

"plus we had a great point system were you only counted 11 out of 16 races"

I agree with you here, that was bad, but in all honesty was it any worse than Bernie's proposed "medals"? Both systems over-complicate things in an attempt to reward wins greater, just increase the points differential from 1st to 2nd (as they did in 1991) and be done with it, I say.

"some teams had 100 horsepower more than others"

Whereas now we have "equalised" "homologated" engines, identical in cylinder configuration, vee angle, etc. bit of a turnoff really. And large horsepower differential leads to more overtaking. Besides, what the customer V8s lacked in horsepower they made up for in agility, fuel efficiency, and when in the back of, say a 1990 Tyrrell or Newey-designed 1988 March, a good chassis.

"the races were boring with not a lot of lead changes..."

Not really, I've watched a few old VHS of season reviews and what-have-you, if a car behind was quicker, overtaking was generally easier than it is now. If someone ran away with the race that's because he and his team deserved to, which is the whole point of a competition after all.

"in one year one car had semi-automatic gearbox active suspension, ABS, traction control etc, while others still had a stick shift etc...."

Technical variety is good, IMO of course.

"I don't know maybe we've been watching a different series. I started watching in 82."

'91 for me, I actually envy you, from what I've heard it was even better back then!

I think this is one of those "agree to disagree" moments though :beer:

Yep, I agree. Some of the gold old times were good, some were tragic and boring. But it's not bad now...I agree with you about the medal system though.

[Demonhill]

And guess what, new larger tanks, redesign, cost..... say no more...

[V12]

Yes but if you only want to look at the cost-cutting angle to this, they'll save on fuel rigs, they can employ less people as pit crew, etc..

[truefan72]

Yes but if you only want to look at the cost-cutting angle to this, they'll save on fuel rigs, they can employ less people as pit crew, etc..

...while employinhg others to redesign the cars, and the cost involved in changing fundamental aspects of racing. All these cost cutting measures are a joke,considering that 7 teams have to now spend millions to redesign their cars literally from the bottom up mideseason because of indecision and grey areas by the FIA and judgments that seem to only serve to provide cover for their indecisions.

I bet you teams have spent more money this year than ever before, and are probably not finished. It will be interesting to see what happens when they set a budget and then the sporting body changes the rules forcing everyone around to scramble and spend money.

I would first like to see proper permanent race stewards employed, with unbiased judgment and the abilty to maker timely calls based on their learned knowledge of the rules, before they venture into yet another overhaul of the racing weekend

Mosely and Bernie need to go

...and bring back in season testing for the good of the sport please.

[Hawkmoon]

Not every decision will be made with cost cutting in mind. KERS was introduced for innovative reasons, not budgetary ones. Same goes for refuelling. It's a sporting decision, not a budgetary one. The cost will be neglible anyway. All the teams will be designing new cars for 2010, they just have to allow for a bigger fuel tank. How is this a huge expense?

This is a good call. Refuelling was reintoduced in 1994 to make the sport more exciting. I, and it would seem others, think it failed for the most part. Let's face it, a pass on the circuit is a million times more exciting than one in the pits.

Combined with the new aero regs that have made passing easier, if the first 3 races are anything to go by, then I think this is one of the few good sporting decisions the FIA has made in years.

[Ranger]

Not every decision will be made with cost cutting in mind. KERS was introduced for innovative reasons, not budgetary ones. Same goes for refuelling. It's a sporting decision, not a budgetary one. The cost will be neglible anyway. All the teams will be designing new cars for 2010, they just have to allow for a bigger fuel tank. How is this a huge expense?


R&D. It isn't simply a case of building a bigger fuel tank. Everything else needs to be changed to accomodate the bigger fuel load and its discrepancy over the race.

Just as the 19000rpm rev limit wasn't simply a case of knocking off 1000rpm. The engines had to be changed to maximise their performance within their new operating constraints.

There is nothing wrong with the racing we are seeing this year. They should keep the fuel tanks as they are.

[CNR]

how the ???? will this work
will an engine on its third race use more fuel then an engine on its first race.
will qualifying be done on a full tank

why not just run untill all cars have run out of fuel and the last car wins

[markabilly]

how the ???? will this work
will an engine on its third race use more fuel then an engine on its first race.
will qualifying be done on a full tank

why not just run untill all cars have run out of fuel and the last car wins
Max announces for 2010 in keeping with the spirit of being green, the cars will be secretly filled by the FIA with random amounts of fuel, so secret the teams will not know, and the cars will race until...........

[mgreb]

During the no refuelling era I remember a lot of last lap passes when the cars started to run out of fuel.

[N. Jones]

We already have exciting racing right now thanks to the new rules. Fighting for position is what people want to see so why change things?

[speeddurango]

I'm not in favor of refuelling ban, period.

[ST205GT4]

I've never liked the way races turned into mini sprints with the introduction of refuelling. So I'll be glad to see the back of it.

Get rid of kers as well and give drivers an over rev button they can use as many times as they like with their fixed fuel load.

[Somebody]

Without mandatory pitstop to change the tyres which means will use super hard compound usable for the whole race have a risk with it that they will not give enough grip considered safe. It doesn't seem to be applicable, if it has to be in effect compulsively, I think the current system is a game involving higher intelligence quotient. imo.

1) Bridgestone aren't going to change their tyre compounds next year to make them harder (they're going to make smaller front tyres to improve the front/rear balance, but they wanted to do that this year and the teams vetoed it. They regret that now...). With Bridgestone's current compounts, running non-stop wouldn't be an option, even without the fact that...

2) The reg stating that in a dry race teams have to use both types of tyre isn't going to change either (and in a wet race, they'll need to change tyres more frequently anyway), so there WILL be a mandatory pit stop, as now.


Hence the perceived(by rulemakers) need for making a car run on both hards and soft compounds in the same race, so as to mess with handling and thereby create artificial excitment and competition
Actually, that's not why that rule exists. That rule exists so that tyres don't get "forgotten" and lower Bridgestone's ROI when there's no tyre war.

[wmcot]

I would like to see the mandatory use of both compounds gone. I would rather see a variety of compounds available and let the teams have the option to interchange them during a race. (In ALMS, teams often run softer tires on the front or one side for better performance.)

Secondly, make tire changes AND refueling optional. Teams would be able to develop a car with a large tank to go full distance or a small tank to refuel.

That would allow different teams to be on very different race strategies and mix things up quite a bit.

I would also like to see a single, longer qualifying session on low fuel and let the teams add whatever fuel they want for race day.

Give the designers and teams more flexibility and you'll see more varied results. Oh, yeah, it wouldn't cost a fortune to redesign all the cars every year, either!

[Big Ben]

If that's the excitement of f1 than I have no problem with it disappearing.

[truefan72]

Its funny how all these things are introduced to bring more "excitement" to formula one. Last year we saw 5 different cars winning races and a close fight that went down to the wire. We saw an extremely fast STR, in the 2nd half of the year, a 2 time race winning Renault, an improving RBR and Toyota and if things stayed the same, I am sure we would have seen an improved Williams and maybe a better Force India. Given that Honda had given up on the 2008 campaign early, I am sure that under the direction of Brawn, they would have seen a much improved car anyway. This year would have seen an ever tightening field and undoubtedly close racing. That is the natural evolution from 2-3 years with relatively similar cars, consistent design/racing rules and performance gaps naturally shrinking between teams. We saw teams improve from 2007, and they were on course to improve yet again in 2009.

This year, if Button wins Barcelona, the WDC will be pretty much set. The WCC will be close to a done deal as well if Rubens podiums. Not to mention the millions teams have spent and the prospect for once again having to radically redesign their cars for 2010. (not to mention 7 of them having to spend millions and precious man hours redesigning the 2009 cars!)

These moves by the FIA have been poorly though off and are really just the whims of cloister like board and president suffering from delusions of grandeur. IMO these rules have been to the detriment of competition and great racing.

[SGWilko]

Its funny how all these things are introduced to bring more "excitement" to formula one. Last year we saw 5 different cars winning races and a close fight that went down to the wire. We saw an extremely fast STR, in the 2nd half of the year, a 2 time race winning Renault, an improving RBR and Toyota and if things stayed the same, I am sure we would have seen an improved Williams and maybe a better Force India. Given that Honda had given up on the 2008 campaign early, I am sure that under the direction of Brawn, they would have seen a much improved car anyway. This year would have seen an ever tightening field and undoubtedly close racing. That is the natural evolution from 2-3 years with relatively similar cars, consistent design/racing rules and performance gaps naturally shrinking between teams. We saw teams improve from 2007, and they were on course to improve yet again in 2009.

This year, if Button wins Barcelona, the WDC will be pretty much set. The WCC will be close to a done deal as well if Rubens podiums. Not to mention the millions teams have spent and the prospect for once again having to radically redesign their cars for 2010. (not to mention 7 of them having to spend millions and precious man hours redesigning the 2009 cars!)

These moves by the FIA have been poorly though off and are really just the whims of cloister like board and president suffering from delusions of grandeur. IMO these rules have been to the detriment of competition and great racing.

Lets take a different view here.....

Just suppose the DDD never came about, and Ross's attempt to close the rules loophole was taken up by the teams...

Who would be way out in front now? Red Bull. I can assure you, as sure as the stars shine above, that the others would still spend gazillions in an attempt to catch up.

It's just that they have something legitimate to moan about.

So, I like to see it as clever engineering, and it IS good that someone else is winning. It is also good to see the others getting closer race by race. I reckon, by seasons end this will have been a good long fight to the final.

[truefan72]

Lets take a different view here.....

Just suppose the DDD never came about, and Ross's attempt to close the rules loophole was taken up by the teams...

Who would be way out in front now? Red Bull. I can assure you, as sure as the stars shine above, that the others would still spend gazillions in an attempt to catch up.

It's just that they have something legitimate to moan about.

So, I like to see it as clever engineering, and it IS good that someone else is winning. It is also good to see the others getting closer race by race. I reckon, by seasons end this will have been a good long fight to the final.

all valid points,

but RBR would not have made am mockery of the entire field as Brawn GP is doing. The only reason they haven't finished 1-2 in every race is because of the Rubens erratic driving ( at times) and one outstanding performance by Vettel on the wets.

my only point though was that by the end of last year we had 5 race winning cars and possibly 6 this year if there was some sort of consistency by the FIA, in terms of the specs and regs. Based on last year, this year would have been a banger of a competition with Mclaren, Ferrari, BMW, STR, Renault, RBR, and Toyota probably fighting it out for race wins. I think that by years end, the cars were that close.

if they had left the cars alone and backed off on stupid steward decisions, we would have seen wheel to wheel racing and exciting races.

...besides, this year the cars seem more difficult to overtake than last year.

[nigelred5]

Yep everything was better before 94, those Osellas and other backmarkers used to be at least 5 seconds a lap slower than the quick guys, plus we had a great point system were you only counted 11 out of 16 races, some teams had 100 horsepower more than others, the races were boring with not a lot of lead changes... in one year one car had semi-automatic gearbox active suspension, ABS, traction control etc, while others still had a stick shift etc.... I don't know maybe we've been watching a different series. I started watching in 82.


1973 for me. The racing was far more interesting, but then the media coverage was far more sparse, so the intrigue was far more alluring back then as well. The lap differentials from front to back of hte grid was larger, and there was much different action on track. the cars were obviously far slower, but far more exciting to watch IMHO.
It wasn't any less political, but it seemed the politics were different, and the drivers seemed to have far more personality as well. It was simply a different sport back then.

[AndyL]

but RBR would not have made am mockery of the entire field as Brawn GP is doing. The only reason they haven't finished 1-2 in every race is because of the Rubens erratic driving ( at times) and one outstanding performance by Vettel on the wets.

Not forgetting Mark Webber's presumably only slightly less outstanding performance in China.

I didn't see Brawn making a mockery of the field in Bahrain either. If Button hadn't passed Vettel off the start we would have seen a quite different result I think. Button pulled out something like 20 seconds over Vettel during the periods when he was in clear air while Vettel was tucked up behind either Hamilton or Trulli; and ended up winning the race by less than 10 seconds. So it could have been very different on another roll of the dice.

[JasonD]

Im like, ummm wow, this is cool.

While I really like the idea of no refueling, (everyone gets a full load of fuel and more emphasis's is put on the track and not pitlane), I really really like no more tyre warmers.

Its one of those silly things Ive never really understood. These guys are supposed to be the best of the best but they need their tyres warmed first? Give me a break, that first lap out of the pits is going to separate the hot shoes from the cold boots.

[V12]

Good :up:

I just hope they scrap the mandatory option tyre (oxymoron if ever their was one), oh and DON'T reduce the race distance - they could do 300kms on one tank before 1994, so they can do it again.

[Easy Drifter]

In keeping with Mad Max's ideas to keep the costs down we now introduce a new rule that will again force a complete redesign of all the cars to accomodate the increased fuel.
Brilliant.
Or do we reduce the race length to a 100 miles.

[Lalo]

Bye bye pittin and fueling strategies :(

[christophulus]

Let me get this straight... cars will need to overtake each other??

Brilliant :) . No more waiting for the pitstops to pass someone. Lots more risky overtaking attempts will be most welcome!

[V12]

Bye bye pittin and fueling strategies :(

Strategy will still play a part, but it will be all about the tyres now. This puts it more in the hands of the driver, because fuel burns at a pretty much constant rate. OK the driver technique can help save a *bit* of fuel, but I imagine the variation between drivers would be pretty low as a percentage. However a good driver can manage his tyres and make them wear at a much lesser rate than others.

[markabilly]

Sort of discussed here.....
http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132840

[jens]

Some are having rose-tinted spectacles about the past, I suspect. I would agree that racing somewhere up-and-including 1987 was great - best era in F1. But I have seen nothing especially exciting or extraordinary about racing around 1991-1993. Actually racing then was worse than what we have seen recently. Largely because the gaps between teams were way bigger.

I think we can't draw a straight parallel between pre-94 and now, so it remains to be seen, how well does the ban of refueling work out. One factor, as mentioned, is that nowadays the competition is a lot tigther. Secondly the tyres, compounds and rules about them are different now. But, sorry, I'm not really hopeful of seeing more passes, like some foresee. If Vettel was stuck behind Trulli for half a race, then I don't see why he shouldn't have been stuck for the whole race. Strategy will still be important with the difference that it's needed to make a right call, when to pit for tyres and how well to manage them during stints (depending also on how durable the '10 slicks will be, which we don't know yet).

[BDunnell]

Some are having rose-tinted spectacles about the past, I suspect. I would agree that racing somewhere up-and-including 1987 was great - best era in F1. But I have seen nothing especially exciting or extraordinary about racing around 1991-1993. Actually racing then was worse than what we have seen recently. Largely because the gaps between teams were way bigger.

Anything up to and including 1987 is quite a big era, isn't it?

The truth is that there have always been many dull races in every F1 season. There were some exciting things to happen in the 1991-93 period — the final laps of Monaco in 1992, and the first lap of Donington in 1993, were pretty good.

[TheFamousEccles]

They should completely re-write the rules: there should be a minimum horsepower level, engine configuration should be completely open, a maximum wing surface area, and a maximum spend limit on development. Cars should be able to get through a complete race weekend on one engine (though in the eventuality of a blow-up, a re-build without penalty is allowed, but done under supervision to prevent a straight swap), and there should be a maximum fuel tank size and no refueling.

I like the idea of open engine configuration - anything goes. Dyno readings at the start of a weekend and on race day morning to assess the requirement for "success ballast", or some other form of handicapping.

How about ground effect skirts? Tech today and composite materials could make them more reliable? Oh yeah, I am in the ideas man zone now :facelick:

[UltimateDanGTR]

They should completely re-write the rules: there should be a minimum horsepower level, engine configuration should be completely open, a maximum wing surface area, and a maximum spend limit on development. Cars should be able to get through a complete race weekend on one engine (though in the eventuality of a blow-up, a re-build without penalty is allowed, but done under supervision to prevent a straight swap), and there should be a maximum fuel tank size and no refueling.

I like the idea of open engine configuration - anything goes. Dyno readings at the start of a weekend and on race day morning to assess the requirement for "success ballast", or some other form of handicapping.

How about ground effect skirts? Tech today and composite materials could make them more reliable? Oh yeah, I am in the ideas man zone now :facelick:

here here! I agree. good ideas! :s mokin:

maybe they should have to run on hydrogen or water, that'll be good as it would show F1 is green. and so environmentalists would like it. :)

[jens]

Anything up to and including 1987 is quite a big era, isn't it?


:p : Shame on me that I forgot to mention the "starting point"! From around 1980/81 for me marks the beginning of that "era". :)

[Anubis]

I'm in favour of the ban, personally. Refuelling turned the whole thing into a game of chess rather than a race. If I want strategy, I'll watch endurance racing. I want F1 to be about action on the track, not on a laptop in the pits. Incorrect strategy can hamper even the best drivers, whilst the opposite is also true - a good strategy can promote an average driver higher than he'd otherwise be capable of on his own, which can't be right.

[markabilly]

now.




Originally Posted by markabilly http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/aria/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=623527#post623527)
Hence the perceived(by rulemakers) need for making a car run on both hards and soft compounds in the same race, so as to mess with handling and thereby create artificial excitment and competition





1)


Actually, that's not why that rule exists. That rule exists so that tyres don't get "forgotten" and lower Bridgestone's ROI when there's no tyre war.


Great, I am so relieved, for that reason has EVERYTHING to do with racing.....

next I will hear the real reason for wings and the big airbox being kept has to do with providing necessary area for advertizers logos.... :rolleyes:

The real reason for F1 racing: making money

[CNR]

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=326699

The FIA also confirmed a refueling ban for 2010 to, as they put it, "save the costs of transporting refueling equipment and increase the incentive for engine http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=326699#to improve fuel economy". While this could benefit the sport in terms of strategy, fuel economy improvement and driver skills, there is of course a downside as well. Formula One cars don't have a large fuel tank, at present they can only carry a maximum of about 80 to 90 kg of fuel, and not the 200 or 220 kg of fuel you need to complete a 300 kilometer race (depending on the circuit, and given the volume weight of F1 fuel is 0,72 kg per liter).
niki lauda nurburgring 1976 crash (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE97Hz4e_OI)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE97Hz4e_OI

Gerard Berger Tamburello Imola 1989 Crash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd8q5HoBzOA&NR=1

[ArrowsFA1]

I'm in favour of the ban, personally.
Me too. It was a neat trick when Brabham introduced it in '82 but, as with many things in F1 (like KERS) once everyone has it we're back to square one.

[schmenke]

Great. So for the first half of the race drivers will be wallowing around the track like beached whales, burning fuel and conserving tyres for the sprint to the finish... :dozey:

[chuck34]

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=326699

niki lauda nurburgring 1976 crash (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE97Hz4e_OI)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE97Hz4e_OI

Gerard Berger Tamburello Imola 1989 Crash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd8q5HoBzOA&NR=1

I didn't even think about that. I wonder if Max has?

[chuck34]

Great. So for the first half of the race drivers will be wallowing around the track like beached whales, burning fuel and conserving tyres for the sprint to the finish... :dozey:

That about sums it up.

[PitMarshal]

Gerard Berger Tamburello Imola 1989 Crash
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd8q5HoBzOA&NR=1

I was wondering if anyone would bring that up. IIRC that incident was one of the catalysts for the pro-refuelling lobby. Whilst I personally don't like refuelling from a racing (or lack thereof) point of view, I'm not sure that carrying enough fuel for the whole race is a better option. Quite apart from the safety consideration, given that there are now only three or four different engines out there, all of which are running controlled ECU's I can't see there is much scope for gaining advantages on fuel economy. If fuelling does go, I'd like to see a freeing up of engine regs so that teams have the choice of a large hulking 3.5 V8 that will require a bigger fuel tank, or a smaller V6 that will have less power but more scope for fuel economy (and hence less weight).

[BobbyC]

I was wondering if anyone would bring that up. IIRC that incident was one of the catalysts for the pro-refuelling lobby. Whilst I personally don't like refuelling from a racing (or lack thereof) point of view, I'm not sure that carrying enough fuel for the whole race is a better option. Quite apart from the safety consideration, given that there are now only three or four different engines out there, all of which are running controlled ECU's I can't see there is much scope for gaining advantages on fuel economy. If fuelling does go, I'd like to see a freeing up of engine regs so that teams have the choice of a large hulking 3.5 V8 that will require a bigger fuel tank, or a smaller V6 that will have less power but more scope for fuel economy (and hence less weight).

Exactly. I remember reading 20 years ago an F1 car had a fuel tank about 225 litres.

It was the 1973 Indy 500 when cars ran with tanks over 300 litres of racing methanol, and a few incidents that year led to the cars having their tanks cut from 80 gallons to 40 (1974), 35 (1997), 30 (2003), and now 22 gallons (2007) of alcohol.

A 55-gallon fuel tank in an F1 car is three times the capacity of the fuel tank in a Sprint Cup race car (18 gallons).

But having 55 gallons in flames in a Berger-type incident is unsafe compared to 20 gallons.

[LeonBrooke]

... overtaking was generally easier than it is now.

I've watched a few old races and generally that's true... not just in F1 but in most series too - touring cars and sports cars. I think these days cars hold the racing line better and grip better - you're less likely to run a little wide and have someone go past you, and it's harder to go off-line to go past someone who's not making mistakes.

[ShiftingGears]

I've watched a few old races and generally that's true... not just in F1 but in most series too - touring cars and sports cars. I think these days cars hold the racing line better and grip better - you're less likely to run a little wide and have someone go past you, and it's harder to go off-line to go past someone who's not making mistakes.

It's because there's more reliance on aerodynamic grip now. And the tyres are softer, so they produce more marbles, and therefore reduce the number of racing lines. Not to mention smaller braking zones, higher cornering speeds (reducing braking zones). They can butcher F1 circuits past and present like Barcelona and Estoril but in the end it's down to the regulations to really allow good racing.

[gloomyDAY]

It's because there's more reliance on aerodynamic grip now. And the tyres are softer, so they produce more marbles, and therefore reduce the number of racing lines. Not to mention smaller braking zones, higher cornering speeds (reducing braking zones). They can butcher F1 circuits past and present like Barcelona and Estoril but in the end it's down to the regulations to really allow good racing.Don't forget Hockenheim. :(

I think the re-fueling ban is a good idea to start the initial part of cost cutting. Yes, more time, money and energy will be spent to design a new chassis, but the net result is advantageous to F1. Zero fuel rig problems during the race (increase in safety), challenges drives to adjust their driving style, and forces teams to accommodate themselves to another set rules.

My hope is that the FIA will stabilize the rules and allow teams to construct a chassis that can be safe, consistent and race-ready for years to come.

[LeonBrooke]

It's because there's more reliance on aerodynamic grip now. And the tyres are softer, so they produce more marbles, and therefore reduce the number of racing lines. Not to mention smaller braking zones, higher cornering speeds (reducing braking zones). They can butcher F1 circuits past and present like Barcelona and Estoril but in the end it's down to the regulations to really allow good racing.

My point was that it's not just F1 - it's the same in touring cars and sports cars too - the fact that it's harder to overtake now than it once was. So, i think the current F1 rules are less to blame than we think.

[Tazio]

Excuse me if someone else already mentioned this!

I can't imagine what will happen when they have to run in consistant rain!
Cars sliding everywhere. many safety car laps culminating in a massive pile-up at the end of the race,
as cars will not have burned off their fuel by a long shot.
Hate it!

[Knock-on]

Exactly. I remember reading 20 years ago an F1 car had a fuel tank about 225 litres.

It was the 1973 Indy 500 when cars ran with tanks over 300 litres of racing methanol, and a few incidents that year led to the cars having their tanks cut from 80 gallons to 40 (1974), 35 (1997), 30 (2003), and now 22 gallons (2007) of alcohol.

A 55-gallon fuel tank in an F1 car is three times the capacity of the fuel tank in a Sprint Cup race car (18 gallons).

But having 55 gallons in flames in a Berger-type incident is unsafe compared to 20 gallons.

I think with the current engines, we could get away with a 30 Imperial Gallon tank for a 300km race.

I suggest that the FIA impose a ban on tanks larger than 150 liters and reduce it by 10 litres each year until down to 100 L