Low fuel qualifying

[Knock-on]

is back.....

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulations/Pages/FIAFormulaOneWorldChampionship.aspxhttp://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulations/Pages/FIAFormulaOneWorldChampionship.aspx

In full favour of this change. They qualify on outright pace and then fill for the race.

[Alfa Fan]

Seems to be the case. Says fuel can be added/removed in parc ferme after qualifying. Be good to see return of low fuel qualifying, I don't the fuel link between qualifying-race has helped improve the racing over the last few races.

[F1boat]

With the refueling ban it makes sense, but I am bitterly disappointed in both changes. I loved the tactical competition... Like Hungary 98...

[UltimateDanGTR]

with low fuel qualifying, the fastest will be at the front. as someone said a while ago, if you put the fastest at the front how do we expect overtaking? at least with fuelled quali we could have tactics and the fastest may not necessarily be on pole, so there was something interesting. not any more....

[ClarkFan]

I do dislike the absolute ban on refueling during a race. Bet that ban goes away with the first race leader who runs out of fuel on the last lap and drops out of the points as a result. If the FIA wants to discourage tactical use of fuel stops, simply require low-flow, gravity-fed refueling lines, with all pit personnel and equipment required to be back behind the wall before the car is cleared to leave. I know that the intent is to encourage on-track racing, but until the aerodynamics on the cars are fixed so they can draft each other, races still won't feature cars passing for position.

The FIA still seems to be approaching racing and design rules higgledy-piggledy, making up a new rule a day (No track testing and no wind tunnel testing, either!) without considering how the whole picture fits together. I would be much more confident about the results of their rulemaking process if there was any evidence of someone thinking about the content of the rulebook in totality, rather than spinning off random changes like the Red Queen.

ClarkFan
Who cannot bring himself to believe three impossible things before breakfast.

[Easy Drifter]

It will produce a grid more based on true performance without the question of amount of fuel onboard. Question: Will we see the odd car run out of fuel during qualifying right after turning a pole speed lap, thereby screwing up everyone else with a caution?
It will also mean the race will be decided more on pace rather than getting it right on the pit stops.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a few cars either run out near the end or drastically slow down to perserve fuel. Is there a provision for emergency top ups?
It should slightly cut down costs as 2 less men required on a stop plus the complexity of the refueling rigs. You won't need the highly pressurized rigs now in use and the electronic flaps.

[ioan]

with low fuel qualifying, the fastest will be at the front. as someone said a while ago, if you put the fastest at the front how do we expect overtaking? at least with fuelled quali we could have tactics and the fastest may not necessarily be on pole, so there was something interesting. not any more....

F1 worked very well for more than 50 years with low fuel qualifying.
The race fuel level qualifying was just a knee jerk reaction from Bernie to give the occasional viewer a bit more show.

If you need gimmicks that improve the show than wrestling is what you should watch instead of F1.

[DexDexter]

Banning refueling and having low fuel qualifying means that it is less likely that the fastest car doesn't win the race, which means boring races ahead. The fastest car will qualify first, lead the race from the start and vanish into the distance like the Mclarens in 1988, 89. :mad:

[Easy Drifter]

Good grief!!!!!! I agree with ioan!!!!!!
There must be two blue moons. :D
Another interesting thing will be to see who can design a car to carry the full fuel load with the least affect on handling as the fuel load decreases. Remember only one tank is allowed so there will be handling issues to consider as the fuel weight lowers. It is not as apparent today as none of the cars have tanks much larger than a half race distance load.
This will also affect the use of the different compound tires as people try to figure out which compound to use when. Do you use the stickier tire first to go faster but use it up quickly and then switch to the hard and stay with them or switch again for a 3rd stint. Do you run the hard compound first and save the softer for the end or for a possible middle stint. One tire stop or two or three?
There will be all sorts ideas on tire use every race, I suspect.
One equation out of the race tactics but another added. :confused:

[jens]

Qualifying for me always meant that it should show, which package has the outright fastest pace. Race due to strategies and all kinds of circumstances may not show it, so quali is what was meant to clarify the ultimate pace. Hence I never liked race-fuel qualifying, due to fuel loads you could never be completely sure, who is how quick in reality.

As for refueling ban, I'm not convinced about the proposed advantages it should give either. I can't see it encouraging on-track fighting and more overtaking. If a driver can't overtake the one in front, then it doesn't matter which strategical options he has to turn the race in his favour. One can't try something that is physically impossible. 2009 aero rules were supposed to give more overtaking too, but nothing has radically changed.

The main interesting aspect I can foresee, is that someone behind others takes a gamble and makes less tyre-stops, hence leading with more worn tyres at end of the race and as a result needs to block chasers. But if drivers will still be forced to use both tyre compounds in a race next year too, even that excitement may not come into realization (everyone needs to make at least 1 stop and it means less opportunities for flexible tactics).

[ioan]

Good grief!!!!!! I agree with ioan!!!!!!


Can't be, didn't you say I know nothing about racing?! :p


Another interesting thing will be to see who can design a car to carry the full fuel load with the least affect on handling as the fuel load decreases.

TBH I think that the handling of the cars will improve as the fuel load decreases because the CoG of the cars will be lowered.

I also believe that the cars that run KERS are better positioned right now as they already had to work with less ballast this season.

[ioan]

As for refueling ban, I'm not convinced about the proposed advantages it should give either. I can't see it encouraging on-track fighting and more overtaking.

Given that there will still be pit stops to change tires I believe that the idea behind banning refueling has more to do with trying to remove the inherent dangers of the process than trying to improve overtaking.

[wedge]

F1 worked very well for more than 50 years with low fuel qualifying.
The race fuel level qualifying was just a knee jerk reaction from Bernie to give the occasional viewer a bit more show.

If you need gimmicks that improve the show than wrestling is what you should watch instead of F1.

I suppose qualifying tyres were a gimmick in the 80s?

Alex Caffi qualified within the top-4 in a Pirelli-shod Dallara in the 1989 Hungarian GP and made a contribution in spicing up the show in what was to be an expected dull race.

[jens]

I suppose qualifying tyres were a gimmick in the 80s?

Alex Caffi qualified within the top-4 in a Pirelli-shod Dallara in the 1989 Hungarian GP and made a contribution in spicing up the show in what was to be an expected dull race.

Or 1990 Phoenix was even more extraordinary, where Pirelli-shod Martini, de Cesaris and Alesi all qualified into Top4. :)

[wedge]

As for refueling ban, I'm not convinced about the proposed advantages it should give either. I can't see it encouraging on-track fighting and more overtaking. If a driver can't overtake the one in front, then it doesn't matter which strategical options he has to turn the race in his favour. One can't try something that is physically impossible. 2009 aero rules were supposed to give more overtaking too, but nothing has radically changed.

The main interesting aspect I can foresee, is that someone behind others takes a gamble and makes less tyre-stops, hence leading with more worn tyres at end of the race and as a result needs to block chasers. But if drivers will still be forced to use both tyre compounds in a race next year too, even that excitement may not come into realization (everyone needs to make at least 1 stop and it means less opportunities for flexible tactics).

The onus will be down to the drivers.

1987 British GP is a brilliant example. Mansell 2-stopping, driving like his pants was on fire vs. Piquet trying to conserve his tyres.

The problem with refuelling is pit passing. It's all about in laps and out laps, doing stonking lap times at the end of the fuel run, making as much time time on a clear track. Why bother risking an overtake if you can do all those things when you're told the car ahead is going to stop before you?

[jens]

The onus will be down to the drivers.

1987 British GP is a brilliant example. Mansell 2-stopping, driving like his pants was on fire vs. Piquet trying to conserve his tyres.

The problem with refuelling is pit passing. It's all about in laps and out laps, doing stonking lap times at the end of the fuel run, making as much time time on a clear track. Why bother risking an overtake if you can do all those things when you're told the car ahead is going to stop before you?

As has been said, it's not about "bothering", it's about the possibility of overtaking. We have seen multiple times even this season, when driver behind has to overtake to keep his chances alive, but can't do it. And 20 years ago overtaking was way easier, so I don't think we can draw a straight comparison. Refueling ban won't make overtaking any easier - except if tyre wear levels are very different by the end of a race.

And even in that famous "refueling ban" - when overtaking was easier - era we saw a train of cars, where drivers were unable to pass the driver in front. Like Alesi led the first stint in Portugal'93 with four cars behind him and no-one could do anything about it. Next year such 'spectacles' will be quite common.

[V12]

F1 worked very well for more than 50 years with low fuel qualifying.
The race fuel level qualifying was just a knee jerk reaction from Bernie to give the occasional viewer a bit more show.

If you need gimmicks that improve the show than wrestling is what you should watch instead of F1.


Agree 100%, on both the knee jerk and the gimmick wrestling part!


I suppose qualifying tyres were a gimmick in the 80s?

Alex Caffi qualified within the top-4 in a Pirelli-shod Dallara in the 1989 Hungarian GP and made a contribution in spicing up the show in what was to be an expected dull race.

Nope - qualifying tyres weren't a gimmick, but a natural by-product of the competition between Pirelli and Goodyear. Big difference.

Even after qualifying tyres were banned (grrrr) we had times when the likes of Olivier Panis and Damon Hill (Bridgestone) would mix it among the front runners (Goodyear) on occasion in 1997. Same at the start of this decade, Bridgestone had the best team/car/driver combo (Schuey & Ferrari), but Michelin (usually) made the better tyre, which made for some interesting racing - or rather, meant that early 2000s F1 was MS's personal property only every other year, rather than every year.

But of course, we aren't even allowed to have THAT anymore. We have mandatory option tyres (an oxymoron surely?) - now THAT is a gimmick.

All hail Bridgestone and all of their well-earned "victories" since the start of 2007, and all hail the almighty God that is cost-cutting (or else!)

OK rant over, back on topic, credit where it's due, the switch back to low fuel qualifying is the best rule change the FIA have made in god knows how long, but they shouldn't have changed it at all for 2003 in the first place.

[edv]

Drifter says single fuel cell. Is this the case? I do not know. Will the fuel cell be centered down the axis of the car, or be completely in one side pod with electronics in the other side pod? If it isn't centered, then handling will change drastically during the race, you'd think, with Centre of Mass not only moving downward but also to the side.
Anyone able to shed light on how this was done in the past?

[christophulus]

The onus will be down to the drivers.

1987 British GP is a brilliant example. Mansell 2-stopping, driving like his pants was on fire vs. Piquet trying to conserve his tyres.

The problem with refuelling is pit passing. It's all about in laps and out laps, doing stonking lap times at the end of the fuel run, making as much time time on a clear track. Why bother risking an overtake if you can do all those things when you're told the car ahead is going to stop before you?

I'd love to see that happen but overtaking has to be made possible first. No point having newer tyres than the guy you are chasing if you can't get close enough to pass.

[DexDexter]

As has been said, it's not about "bothering", it's about the possibility of overtaking. We have seen multiple times even this season, when driver behind has to overtake to keep his chances alive, but can't do it. And 20 years ago overtaking was way easier, so I don't think we can draw a straight comparison. Refueling ban won't make overtaking any easier - except if tyre wear levels are very different by the end of a race.

And even in that famous "refueling ban" - when overtaking was easier - era we saw a train of cars, where drivers were unable to pass the driver in front. Like Alesi led the first stint in Portugal'93 with four cars behind him and no-one could do anything about it. Next year such 'spectacles' will be quite common.

:up:

Bernie's reasoning for the medal system seems to have gathered some support on this forum.

[UltimateDanGTR]

F1 worked very well for more than 50 years with low fuel qualifying.
The race fuel level qualifying was just a knee jerk reaction from Bernie to give the occasional viewer a bit more show.

If you need gimmicks that improve the show than wrestling is what you should watch instead of F1.

times have changed since then. it was easier to overtake the last time we had non-fuel-stop races, because the cars were different, and so there was more going on down the field. and alot races in those years ended up with a dominant victor anyway, usually mclaren in the late 80s/early 90s, and then williams from 92-93 before fuelled pit stops.

refuelling isn't so much a gimmick as to give teams something tactical to think about, rather than 'fill er' up at the start and the driver 'll do the rest'
so race managment came into play (granted tyre changes were already there, but a new dimension was forged with refuelling)

now hopefully we will see more on track action now, but with the way current cars are designed, it isn't gonna be easy. different times, different technologies and different designs call for different rules. if the cars still were designed in a very simular way as they were in the late 80s, (only safer ofcourse) then id be all for no refuelling as we'd have much more action on track. unfortunatly though, due to the evolution of F1 things aren't like that.

Ioan you seem to think that no refuelling means an automatic passport back to the late 80s. thats not the case.

[V12]

Drifter says single fuel cell. Is this the case? I do not know. Will the fuel cell be centered down the axis of the car, or be completely in one side pod with electronics in the other side pod? If it isn't centered, then handling will change drastically during the race, you'd think, with Centre of Mass not only moving downward but also to the side.
Anyone able to shed light on how this was done in the past?

Yep, it will be a single, centred fuel tank, for reasons of both performance and safety (if there's a tank hanging out on the sidepod it increases the risk of being ruptured in an accident). This has been standard anyway since IIRC the late 70s.

Compare the profile of a 1993 car, with a long sloping airbox and the driver appearing to be further forward in relation to the car as a whole:

http://f1vietnam.com/forum/images/modimages/cars/williams/fw15c_Renault_Prost_Kyalami.jpg

To a 2003 car, with a spindly little airbox (artificially extending fins were required for 2004, mainly to provide extra advertising space in this area of the car, look at how cluttered the Esso, Denso and Toyota logos are and you'll see what I mean), and the driver seemingly closer to the rear wheels:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2364/2232621789_8cca6d221c.jpg?v=1201808086

I some of that is due to the size of the fuel tank decreasing (the early refuelling mid-90s cars probably didn't exploit this packaging advantage to the full, initially), with the remainder (with regards the drivers position) being down to safety - the further back the driver is the better, look at a 1982 car if you really want to be horrified!).

So we'll probably see a (slight) shift back towards an early 90s profile in this regard

[ioan]

I suppose qualifying tyres were a gimmick in the 80s?

Alex Caffi qualified within the top-4 in a Pirelli-shod Dallara in the 1989 Hungarian GP and made a contribution in spicing up the show in what was to be an expected dull race.

:rolleyes:

WWF --> that way!

[ioan]

Drifter says single fuel cell. Is this the case? I do not know. Will the fuel cell be centered down the axis of the car, or be completely in one side pod with electronics in the other side pod? If it isn't centered, then handling will change drastically during the race, you'd think, with Centre of Mass not only moving downward but also to the side.
Anyone able to shed light on how this was done in the past?

Fuel cells are and (with very few exception) were always centered in F1 as the balance and handling of the car is much much better this way + there are a few safety and refueling reasons.

[ioan]

Yep, it will be a single, centred fuel tank, for reasons of both performance and safety (if there's a tank hanging out on the sidepod it increases the risk of being ruptured in an accident). This has been standard anyway since IIRC the late 70s.

Compare the profile of a 1993 car, with a long sloping airbox and the driver appearing to be further forward in relation to the car as a whole:

http://f1vietnam.com/forum/images/modimages/cars/williams/fw15c_Renault_Prost_Kyalami.jpg

To a 2003 car, with a spindly little airbox (artificially extending fins were required for 2004, mainly to provide extra advertising space in this area of the car, look at how cluttered the Esso, Denso and Toyota logos are and you'll see what I mean), and the driver seemingly closer to the rear wheels:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2364/2232621789_8cca6d221c.jpg?v=1201808086

I some of that is due to the size of the fuel tank decreasing (the early refuelling mid-90s cars probably didn't exploit this packaging advantage to the full, initially), with the remainder (with regards the drivers position) being down to safety - the further back the driver is the better, look at a 1982 car if you really want to be horrified!).

So we'll probably see a (slight) shift back towards an early 90s profile in this regard

The cars rear part (behind the driver) becoming shorter has also a lot to do with smaller engines with less cooling requirements. But you are right the main difference surely comes from the smaller fuel cell.

After we got sleeker aero profiles this season I'm looking forward to even more sleek ones next year with the added few centimeters required buy a bigger fuel cell!

[Easy Drifter]

Ioan: Not so much the technical aspects of the cars but the dedication and motivation of the people involved and the crass commercialization of the business. It really is not a sport in the true sense of the word.
You are correct that as the fuel load decreases the center of gravity will decrease. The problems will be in designing the chassis, fuel tank and suspension so the weight reduction as the race progresses will least affect the handling. There are pretty tight restrictions as to location of the fuel so the designers must work within those limitations.
A tall tank means less sloshing around, upsetting balance, but it also means the C of G changes more as the fuel load decreases. A lower tank would mean more sloshing about but less change in C of G. Baffles probably would be used but are very difficult to install giving the material that the internal tank is made of, being basically a flexible bladder inside the tub. To maximize the rigidity of the tub the design engineers really would like no holes in the structure. A cockpit for a driver (a hole in the tub) is a required evil to a designer. Therefore the access hole for the installation of the fuel tank is as tiny as posssible. Sure it is covered with a plate held in place with bolts but it still weakens the structure and every bolt, nut and washer adds weight. So a bladder with built in baffles still must be fitted through a tiny access hole. Small hands help. It is also critical there are no sharp edges that could cause the bladder to wear and that it be fitted tighty so there are no creases where a leak can develop. Somewhere in the bladder is a smallish collection pot with a fuel pump. The pot or internal tank is so that in a corner, or braking/acceleration when the tank is low on fuel the pump(s) do not suck air. It incorporates one way valves so fuel can enter but not get back out except through the pump. Again remember all this is inside the bladder and has to be fitted through the tiniest access hole the designer can get away with. Fitting a fuel tank is probably the most tedious and frustrating job a race mechanic has to do. It usually takes hours.
Just trying to explain the problems of far larger fuel capacity.
And yes I have installed fuel bladders. Unfortunately for me I have small hands!

[Sonic]

Excellent post drifter.

Its going to be very interesting which route the designers go down between ultimate pace and consistent handling.

Some have voiced their concerns that the fastest car will always qualify on pole and be gone forever. But as Drfiter has shown different concepts will result in very different characteristics over the course of a race meaning the fastest car on empty tanks, could well be a dog on a full load at the start and fall back, only to come back strong at the flag.

Or we could have a yawn fest. :D

[woody2goody]

No matter if there's refuelling or not, I'm sure we'll still see cars (and drivers) who are quicker in qualifying and others who are quicker in the race.

Tyre compounds will make a bigger difference as well now.

Ooh... 999 posts

[ioan]

You are correct that as the fuel load decreases the center of gravity will decrease. The problems will be in designing the chassis, fuel tank and suspension so the weight reduction as the race progresses will least affect the handling. There are pretty tight restrictions as to location of the fuel so the designers must work within those limitations.
A tall tank means less sloshing around, upsetting balance, but it also means the C of G changes more as the fuel load decreases. A lower tank would mean more sloshing about but less change in C of G.

Given that the fuel consumption only brings a lower Cog the handling of the car will only be influenced in a positive way, so not a big deal.

IMO the more problematic decision is related to having the optimal weight distribution in order to make the tires work well, and this is the aspect that will prove decisive in selecting the position and layout of the fuel tank.

Just my 2 cents, as I really know nothing about F1! :p :

[Robinho]

happy that Low fuel qually is back, i like to know who is the quickest at the end of the session, not who was probably the quickest several hours later when someone works out how fast they might have gone with less fuel, now allowance for mistakes or car ability on different loads.

not so sure about losing refueling in the race, the tactical element was good, the option of different strategies i liked. if they are able to make overtaling easier then refuelling might be missed less, if we get stuck with a procession with no prospect of shaking things up with a change of strategy perhaps it will make more of a hole.

from a safety point of view not refuelling in the pits in the race takes away an uneccesary risk. having fully fueled cars will likely make them trickier handling, but the drivers should be able to manage that, they are paid to do this of course. the risk of fully fuelled cars opposed to cars with 30 laps of fuel having accidents is negligible IMO, the tanks are that safe that we very rarely see ruptures and fire in accidents, if they went up with 20 laps or 70 laps fuel in it would be a massive mess either way.

the ability to manage a car on full fuel and managing tyres will bring back as interesting aspect to the races as hopefully different cars and drivers will likely be strong at different points

[Easy Drifter]

The fuel tank location is defined in the rules! Design will to quite an extent be limited by those rules.
ioan you just like to cause trouble don't you?
If you bothered to really read and could comprehend what I have said is you do not understand the human and commercial side of racing.
I do feel you are somewhat lacking in conprehending how the designs are constrained by the not always clear rules. The really clever designers exploit these grey areas like Ross did on the diffussers.

[wedge]

:rolleyes:

WWF --> that way!

Not at all.

Typical Ioan over reaction. Probably never saw the race.

Japan 2005 - that was WWF racing!


Even after qualifying tyres were banned (grrrr) we had times when the likes of Olivier Panis and Damon Hill (Bridgestone) would mix it among the front runners (Goodyear) on occasion in 1997. Same at the start of this decade, Bridgestone had the best team/car/driver combo (Schuey & Ferrari), but Michelin (usually) made the better tyre, which made for some interesting racing - or rather, meant that early 2000s F1 was MS's personal property only every other year, rather than every year.

Pirelli generally supplied the lesser teams; Bridgestone start off supplying to lesser teams and to some extent Michelin as well though Williams-BMW had the other advantage that was BHP. That's what made tyre wars interesting.

Tyre wars become boring when you have dominant tyres and dilutes the racing which happened quite a bit in 2006 and frequently in MotoGP over the last few years.


As has been said, it's not about "bothering", it's about the possibility of overtaking. We have seen multiple times even this season, when driver behind has to overtake to keep his chances alive, but can't do it. And 20 years ago overtaking was way easier, so I don't think we can draw a straight comparison. Refueling ban won't make overtaking any easier - except if tyre wear levels are very different by the end of a race.

And even in that famous "refueling ban" - when overtaking was easier - era we saw a train of cars, where drivers were unable to pass the driver in front. Like Alesi led the first stint in Portugal'93 with four cars behind him and no-one could do anything about it. Next year such 'spectacles' will be quite common.

You're always going to get good and bad races and true, current aerodynamics hinders overtaking but I still think no refuelling is a better incentive for overtaking, at least make an effort. There was a time in the early 2000s that Schumi could've overtook cars if he wanted to but instead relied on pit passing because it was the safer option.

[truefan72]

how about no fuel restrictions in qualy and the race

teams can control their own strategy and do as they please.

In this way you will get a variety of strategy, interesting and unpredictable races, more overtaking and different pit windows. To me the fastest car still gets poll, and the benefit of starting first. all cars can then manage their fuel strategy for the race and decide, if they want to run light in one stint, and heavy the rest of the way, or adjust their fuel weights according to the tyres they are on for maximum efficiency.

I prefer that to the no refueling plan which will make the races predictable, encourage less overtaking, create more caravans behind a slower car for the first half of the race, and just about create snooze fest.

I prefer a race with different strategies and agenda's rather than one predictable strategy by all 26 cars.

[truefan72]

You're always going to get good and bad races and true, current aerodynamics hinders overtaking but I still think no refuelling is a better incentive for overtaking, at least make an effort. There was a time in the early 2000s that Schumi could've overtook cars if he wanted to but instead relied on pit passing because it was the safer option.


I don;t think that drivers need an incentive to overtake. If they could, they would. Most drivers aren't master tacticians laying back and waiting for pitstops to happen. If they could overtake they would do so. The best try and do overtake. The worst try and sometimes cause accidents.

saying that drivers need an incentive to overtake is like saying that they need an incentive to drive fast.

btw schumi overtook plenty of cars...and blocked plenty of cars from trying to overtake him

[wedge]

how about no fuel restrictions in qualy and the race

teams can control their own strategy and do as they please.

In this way you will get a variety of strategy, interesting and unpredictable races, more overtaking and different pit windows. To me the fastest car still gets poll, and the benefit of starting first. all cars can then manage their fuel strategy for the race and decide, if they want to run light in one stint, and heavy the rest of the way, or adjust their fuel weights according to the tyres they are on for maximum efficiency.

I prefer that to the no refueling plan which will make the races predictable, encourage less overtaking, create more caravans behind a slower car for the first half of the race, and just about create snooze fest.

I prefer a race with different strategies and agenda's rather than one predictable strategy by all 26 cars.

1 stopping became the norm because its the optimum strategy.


I don;t think that drivers need an incentive to overtake. If they could, they would. Most drivers aren't master tacticians laying back and waiting for pitstops to happen. If they could overtake they would do so. The best try and do overtake. The worst try and sometimes cause accidents.

Why risk overtaking the car ahead if the team told you he was stopping before you?

If you took that variable away would that be more of an incentive to overtake?

Of course it would, it should come down to the driver, not team via pit strategy work out how to beat the car ahead. You have no idea what a driver is thinking apart from lap times whereas with fuel strategy every team have spotters timing rivals' fuel stops and second guessing what each other is doing.

[Sleeper]

Excellent, the return of Bansai low fule qualy laps where we can actually see the results and know that the driver was that fast.

[call_me_andrew]

Are the tire rules staying the same next year?

[Valve Bounce]

is back.....

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulations/Pages/FIAFormulaOneWorldChampionship.aspxhttp://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulations/Pages/FIAFormulaOneWorldChampionship.aspx

In full favour of this change. They qualify on outright pace and then fill for the race.

This link: he don't work here no more. :(

[Knock-on]

This link: he don't work here no more. :(

Try these

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... 0CLEAN.pdf (http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/3C9E78D2AAE9B15DC1257617002CF08F/$FILE/Stable%20Sporting%20Regulations%20-%2024%20July%20-%20CLEAN.pdf)

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... 0CLEAN.pdf (http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/130A104E1769D120C1257617002D4CAE/$FILE/Stable%20Technical%20Regulations%20-%2024th%20July%20-%20CLEAN.pdf)

[SGWilko]

with low fuel qualifying, the fastest will be at the front. as someone said a while ago, if you put the fastest at the front how do we expect overtaking? at least with fuelled quali we could have tactics and the fastest may not necessarily be on pole, so there was something interesting. not any more....

The fastest in low fuel configuration is not necessarily the fastest when a tank full of fuel goes in for the race....

[ioan]

The fastest in low fuel configuration is not necessarily the fastest when a tank full of fuel goes in for the race....

Exactly! :)
There's a 50+ years history that supports that!

[wedge]

The fastest in low fuel configuration is not necessarily the fastest when a tank full of fuel goes in for the race....

Turbulent wake doesn't help things either...

[superocean]

I think low fuel qualy is good but wish F1 would allow the teams to tinker with the cars to go faster instead of them messing around with the rules constantly to manufacture competition.

[truefan72]

how about no fuel restrictions in qualy and the race

teams can control their own strategy and do as they please.

In this way you will get a variety of strategy, interesting and unpredictable races, more overtaking and different pit windows. To me the fastest car still gets poll, and the benefit of starting first. all cars can then manage their fuel strategy for the race and decide, if they want to run light in one stint, and heavy the rest of the way, or adjust their fuel weights according to the tyres they are on for maximum efficiency.

I prefer that to the no refueling plan which will make the races predictable, encourage less overtaking, create more caravans behind a slower car for the first half of the race, and just about create snooze fest.

I prefer a race with different strategies and agenda's rather than one predictable strategy by all 26 cars.

Time to revisit those statements.
As I predicted the boring outcome of no refueling

I wonder if some would like to change their opinion of the refueling ban now that they have seen it in its full glory!

[jens]

The ridicious thing now is that they have to start the race with the same tyres as they set their best qualifying lap on. This means Q3 is still not a full flat-out performance, but part of the race's tyre-conserving exercise. :\

[V12]

I wonder if some would like to change their opinion of the refueling ban now that they have seen it in its full glory!

That's the thing though - we haven't seen it in its "full glory" thanks to the stupid tyre regs.