No refuelling how is it going to be?

[Mark]

I must admit I don't really know what F1 is like without refuelling, as it was before my time.

Presumably we'll still see super-quick pit stops for tyres, but will the racing be more or less exciting? After all it was brought in, in the first place to mix things up a little bit. I fear we'll see more processional races as everyone in the race will have the same fuel load at the same time.

[SGWilko]

The biggest thing is how the drivers manage the brakes on the initial heavy fuel load. Can't remember if Williams are still vetoeing thicker disks, but this is a major factor.

Also, do you still have the stoopid 'must use both compounds in the race' rule? If yes, it'll be manage the harder tyre for a longish 1st stint then go for broke on a lighter load and the softer tyre.

The strategy boys need a sympathetic driver, so I reckon Button will flourish due to smooth style, and Rubens will do well as he can sort out the car.

Other variables are how different the cars performance is from heavy to light.

Should be interesting. Of course, the designers need to get the fuel tank sited in the best place, so that a full tank COG is not too wayward. Ferrari and McLaren could do well, as they have the space left by KERS removal to re-jig packaging.

[ArrowsFA1]

One of the main arguments for refuelling is that it promotes overtaking. Never mind that the overtaking doesn't take place on track because at least it means a change in the order.

Never quite understood that one myself, particularly as it was promoted by a governing body which has safety near the top of its agenda and, as we saw on Sunday, fuel stops are a real danger.

Assuming that we have enjoyed pit lane passing there is a concern that without fuel stops the races may become more processional. The cars will start on the same fuel load so isn't it logical to assume the grid order will determine the race result?

I guess time will tell, but I'm looking forward to seeing how each driver/car combination manage their tyres and fuel load as it lightens. I think there will be more emphasis on the driver and IMHO that's a good thing.

[Koz]

Would qualifying be on a full tank or an empty tank?
I guess it would be less exciting. It would take the variable out, like this year Lewis and Alonso got poles by running light.

Here's a question. Say a Ferrari could run the race on 100l, and a mercedes would need 120 and a cosworth 150. How would minimum weight work with that?
Would Ferrari and Mercedes based car have to be crippled so they all weighed the same? In that case, wouldn't it work out badly? (punished for better engineering)
Otherwise whoever would have the better fuel consumption would also have a lighter car, and would dominate?

How much (realistic assumption please) does the fuel load effect lap times?
And how much fuel is being used per race atm?

Heavier car would be harder on the tires too.

[AndyL]

Minimum weight will be with an empty tank as it is now. So it does look like fuel economy will be a significant factor. Perhaps that's an area where Cosworth can gain an advantage, even if they can't match the power of the best engines. They can still modify their engine with the knowledge that economy is going to be important, while everyone else has designs that were frozen when refuelling was the norm.

[Koz]

Minimum weight will be with an empty tank as it is now. So it does look like fuel economy will be a significant factor. Perhaps that's an area where Cosworth can gain an advantage, even if they can't match the power of the best engines. They can still modify their engine with the knowledge that economy is going to be important, while everyone else has designs that were frozen when refuelling was the norm.

How high are cosworths allowed to rev? 19,000 and the rest at 18?
If so, wouldn't a higher engine rev limit mean more fuel being used (all else being equal)?

[AndyL]

How high are cosworths allowed to rev? 19,000 and the rest at 18?
If so, wouldn't a higher engine rev limit mean more fuel being used (all else being equal)?

I think it might well be true that more revs would mean a thirstier engine, but AFAIK Cosworth are not getting a rev limit advantage any more - can anyone else confirm?

[MrJan]

We may well end up with vastly different strategies. For example some smoother drivers will be able to go longer without neededing to stop whereas people like Hamilton will need to stop more often. Could be the case that you get Button one stopping and LH 3 stopping, obviously that's a bit extreme but 2 more stops (with no fuel penalty or advantage) can ruin a race so the smooth drivers will, in theory, suit the system better.

[Mark]

I think a lot depends on what sort of tyres they give them. i.e. Sticky tyres that'll allow you to do three quick stints or harder ones which allow you to one stop.

Hopefully they'll get rid of the use both rule.

[ioan]

The biggest thing is how the drivers manage the brakes on the initial heavy fuel load. Can't remember if Williams are still vetoeing thicker disks, but this is a major factor.

Their are vetoing anything, it's in their blood.

[ioan]

I think it might well be true that more revs would mean a thirstier engine, but AFAIK Cosworth are not getting a rev limit advantage any more - can anyone else confirm?

Confirmed.

[ioan]

Would qualifying be on a full tank or an empty tank?

Almost empty tank.

[ioan]

We may well end up with vastly different strategies. For example some smoother drivers will be able to go longer without neededing to stop whereas people like Hamilton will need to stop more often. Could be the case that you get Button one stopping and LH 3 stopping, obviously that's a bit extreme but 2 more stops (with no fuel penalty or advantage) can ruin a race so the smooth drivers will, in theory, suit the system better.

Depends how much faster the aggressive drivers will be able to go, especially considering that they will have new tires available every 20 laps or so, so they will be able to push almost continuously.
With pit stop times being reduced to less than 20 seconds, a driver doing 2 stops will need to make 1/3 seconds per lap to beat the one stopper, not that hard.

[MrJan]

Depends how much faster the aggressive drivers will be able to go, especially considering that they will have new tires available every 20 laps or so, so they will be able to push almost continuously.
With pit stop times being reduced to less than 20 seconds, a driver doing 2 stops will need to make 1/3 seconds per lap to beat the one stopper, not that hard.

But if having to do 3 stops due to s**gged tyres then it would be 2/3 second (I assume) which is pretty tricky. Also when fuel isn't a factor I'm not convinced that 3 tenths will be that easy to find.

[ioan]

But if having to do 3 stops due to s**gged tyres then it would be 2/3 second (I assume) which is pretty tricky. Also when fuel isn't a factor I'm not convinced that 3 tenths will be that easy to find.

Let's not push it. I don't think that Button is such a smooth driver that he will only need 1 stop when others need 3.
If however he somehow manages to make only one stop when others needed 3 than he sure will be more than 0.666 seconds / lap slower in order to do that.

[Mark]

Of course the last time we had non-refuelling pit stops, we also did not have a pit lane speed limit.

[Mark]

Let's not push it. I don't think that Button is such a smooth driver that he will only need 1 stop when others need 3.
If however he somehow manages to make only one stop when others needed 3 than he sure will be more than 0.666 seconds / lap slower in order to do that.

I think it might be more like Button will need to stop the same amount of times as the other drivers. But in the latter part of his stint he should have more grip than the other more ragged drivers and be able to make up some time..

[MrJan]

I said it was an extreme case, we all know that LH throws the car around and will generally need to stop more than anyone else. Plus in certain temperatures different car and tyre combinations throw up weird situations.

[Sonic]

Assuming that we have enjoyed pit lane passing there is a concern that without fuel stops the races may become more processional. The cars will start on the same fuel load so isn't it logical to assume the grid order will determine the race result?

I guess time will tell, but I'm looking forward to seeing how each driver/car combination manage their tyres and fuel load as it lightens. I think there will be more emphasis on the driver and IMHO that's a good thing.

I a very valid point. Several things concern me about next year and I hope that if (like IRL) the races become dull the FIA will realise that some of the following things may need to change;

1) Parc Ferme. If we line up in order, and assuming everyone has similar fuel consumtion etc how can we expect the guy P3 to outpace P1? We can't. Thinking back over the years the have been numerous examples of a bad Saturday turning into a good Sunday with some clever adjustments overnight. Shumi and Benetton were a master of it in '94 & '95. McLaren also in Detroit (?) Qualified nearly last and went on to win.

2) Two compounds. Dumb, dumb, dumb. This removes the option of a no stopper, or a mid race one stop for that matter too. We need variation in stratagy to give performance differences = racing.

I hope I'm wrong and the fastest car on low fuel is not automatically fast on brimmed tanks but I do hope that if the show is poor the FIA waste no time in acting.

[wedge]

Probably we'll see farcical finish where cars run out of fuel or the last few laps in limp home mode.

Brundle thinks we'll get fuel economy runs. Though he did race the previous era I'm quite surprised he's in favour of refuelling no doubt spent too much time staring at timing screens looking for green and purple sectors.

I think there's more incentive to pass on the race track than to pit pass and taking away the spectacle of cars racing/dog fights.

[wedge]

I hope I'm wrong and the fastest car on low fuel is not automatically fast on brimmed tanks but I do hope that if the show is poor the FIA waste no time in acting.

I think its going to be terrific.

The cars are so more evenly matched, especially in the midfield. It's going to come down which driver manages their car best, not some geek in pit wall via pit strategy.

[BillBald]

We'll get some very dull races.

On circuits where it's hard to overtake, the pole man will drive around slowly, looking after his tyres so he doesn't have to stop and lose his position. The others will form an orderly queue behind him.

No-one will try to overtake, because there will always be someone close behind who can take advantage if you try to overtake and go offline.

Anyone who pits for tyres will drop to the back of the queue, and won't be able to make use of the improved grip.

That's the pessimistic view. I suppose the optimistic view is that drivers will get really desperate to overtake, and there will be bodywork strewn all over the track.

They should have fixed the overtaking problem first.

[MrJan]

No-one will try to overtake, because there will always be someone close behind who can take advantage if you try to overtake and go offline.

But in Kubica, Sutil, Kimi, Hamilton and the majority of back markers you have a handful of drivers who would generally chance a move rather than sit behind someone. I'm not sure if the idea will help or hinder stuff but I'll certainly enjoy watching a GP without having to think about where drivers will come out after pitstops, in that respect the sport will be more easily accessible :)

[ioan]

I said it was an extreme case, we all know that LH throws the car around and will generally need to stop more than anyone else. Plus in certain temperatures different car and tyre combinations throw up weird situations.

He doesn't really stop more than anyone else nowadays, he is pretty much on the same race strategy as the majority. Can't believe I'm defending him.

[ioan]

The good part is that race fuel qualifying is finally being dropped.

[BillBald]

Think about Valencia and Singapore this year.

IIRC there were no attempts at on-track overtaking after the first lap.

That was NOT because drivers thought they could overtake using fuel strategy.

About half the drivers would have known that the guy in front was going longer.

They chose to sit behind, presumably hoping that the driver they were following was going to have a problem. Or maybe he would try an overtake himself and go offline, so they could take advantage.

Next year it will be very similar, but we won't even have pit stop strategy to make things more interesting.

[Sonic]

He doesn't really stop more than anyone else nowadays, he is pretty much on the same race strategy as the majority. Can't believe I'm defending him.

Cr@ppy feeling ain't it!?

He does have races where he used the rubber harder than others - Turkey as the obvious example, but the team manage him very well on the whole. TBH that's the best way to improve racing - ban ruddy telemetry in race so the driver has to make these choices. Not some computer nerd watching a screen out the back.

[wedge]

Think about Valencia and Singapore this year.

IIRC there were no attempts at on-track overtaking after the first lap.

That was NOT because drivers thought they could overtake using fuel strategy.

About half the drivers would have known that the guy in front was going longer.

They chose to sit behind, presumably hoping that the driver they were following was going to have a problem. Or maybe he would try an overtake himself and go offline, so they could take advantage.

It's pit strategy.

Why push hard in dirty air, ruin your tyres trying catch/overtake the car infront if you know that opponent is stopping earlier than you? You can easily make up the difference in clean air. A great spectacle it does not make.

[Mark]

1) Parc Ferme. If we line up in order, and assuming everyone has similar fuel consumtion etc how can we expect the guy P3 to outpace P1? We can't. Thinking back over the years the have been numerous examples of a bad Saturday turning into a good Sunday with some clever adjustments overnight. Shumi and Benetton were a master of it in '94 & '95. McLaren also in Detroit (?) Qualified nearly last and went on to win.

The answer is to allow setup changes overnight, but restricted to things like wings, springs, dampers etc.

The problem before Parc Ferme is that the teams would spend all night taking the car completely apart then putting it back together again. Which actually resulted in much poorer reliability!

[ArrowsFA1]

This struck me watching the race weekend. One of the commentators mentioned something about no, or very limited, setup changes being allowed, and I thought how daft that is.

It's the reason why some teams attempted to qualify with a dry setup expecting the rain to be gone by Sunday. They were right in the end, but that's not really the point. Why on earth prevent the teams from optimising the cars for the conditions?

The teams spend $m's to design and perfect the cars, and yet when it comes to the race weekend, which is what it's all about, they're told "no, got to leave things as they are" :dozey: There are so many variables affecting performance that this seems to be another self defeating dictat by the FIA.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

We could see more errors from wheel gun operators. In the past the wheel gun people could still make an error but it wouldn't cost any time because the fuel hose would still be in. More pressure will be on the wheel gun operators. Pit stops will only take about 4 seconds, so every second will be crucial. A sticking wheel nut will be more disastrous than in the past.

[Wasted Talent]

Almost empty tank.

:) :) :)

WT

[wedge]

1) Parc Ferme. If we line up in order, and assuming everyone has similar fuel consumtion etc how can we expect the guy P3 to outpace P1?

A car with low fuel handles differently with heavier full tank. It comes down to who manages their car/tyres best over a race distance.

Well, that's the theory....

[Wasted Talent]

We could see more errors from wheel gun operators. In the past the wheel gun people could still make an error but it wouldn't cost any time because the fuel hose would still be in. More pressure will be on the wheel gun operators. Pit stops will only take about 4 seconds, so every second will be crucial. A sticking wheel nut will be more disastrous than in the past.

Agree with this - more pressure will possibly lead to more pit lane incidents as well

WT

[wedge]

Why on earth prevent the teams from optimising the cars for the conditions?

The teams spend $m's to design and perfect the cars, and yet when it comes to the race weekend, which is what it's all about, they're told "no, got to leave things as they are" :dozey: There are so many variables affecting performance that this seems to be another self defeating dictat by the FIA.

Too predictable, more processional races.

Look at Japan quali. Hamilton clearly out drove the car whilst others struggled to replicate a similar feat but made significant mistakes and crashed.

[schmenke]

Overtaking will take place only in the latter few laps of the race when the cars are light on fuel and drivers have made their final pit stop for a fresh set of tires.

[Sonic]

A car with low fuel handles differently with heavier full tank. It comes down to who manages their car/tyres best over a race distance.

Well, that's the theory....

Yup. That's the theory, but these are smart people and its unlikely someone is going to build a qualifying special and sacrifice race pace

[rabf1]

What was the rationale for eliminating refuling?

[Sonic]

What was the rationale for eliminating refuling?

To encourage overtaking! Ironic eh?

[AndyL]

To encourage overtaking! Ironic eh?

It's to save money isn't it?

(You know, the way the FIA usually tries to save teams money - by forcing them all to substantially redesign their cars :rolleyes: )

[AndyL]

It's pit strategy.

Why push hard in dirty air, ruin your tyres trying catch/overtake the car infront if you know that opponent is stopping earlier than you? You can easily make up the difference in clean air. A great spectacle it does not make.

I think you're missing the point BillBald was making, Wedge - that when one car is following another right now, in a fair proportion of cases the guy ahead is stopping later. Even when the chaser does not have the strategic advantage we rarely see them making a pass.

[Easy Drifter]

Probably safety was also considered as there have been too many incidents like last weekend plus several failures of the rigs to actually deliver fuel. The refueling gear is not manufactured by the teams but supplied by an outside manufacturer.
As far as tire stops are concerned I think that much will depend on the compounds Bridgestone comes up with and if the 2 different compound rule continues.
It is quite possible the Bridgestone will come up with some quite durable compounds. Please do not call them hard as a too hard a compound will overheat and go off just as fast as a too soft a compound. If the two compound rule goes it is quite possible at the odd race some might try to go all the way without a stop, again very much dependent on what Bridgestone produces. Race strategy will still play a big factor as to when to stop particularly if the two compound rule continues.
I guess we will have to wait a few months to find out!

[djparky]

it was perfectly fine before refuelling nonsense turned all races into strategies and everyone tootled around until the pit stops.

Now the driver will have to manage the tyres, brakes etc on full tanks, low tanks etc- it's not a dash from one set of low fuel & fresh tyres to the next- it will reward the truly talented more than the current rules do

along with a return to proper slicks from that horrible grooved tyre crap is the best thing that's happened to F1 in about 15 years

[F1boat]

Very bad idea IMO. I loved the strategy battles.

[christophulus]

If they do it properly it'll be great. I assume the ban on tyre warmers isn't going to be around next year? A fuel-heavy car on stone-cold tyres.. can't see anyone fancying that!

[Sonic]

along with a return to proper slicks from that horrible grooved tyre crap is the best thing that's happened to F1 in about 15 years

yeah but we are getting cr@py narrow fronts from next year - passings gonna be even harder!

[JSH]

Very bad idea IMO. I loved the strategy battles.

It'll still be a strategy battle. Tyre wear strategy based on fuel load. Fuel load will be absolute minimum and if the driver goes to hard and burns too much fuel early on he'll be told to ease off or run out.

The only difference no fuel stops brings is the mechanics can wear shorts again, and there's a bit of extra room in the pits with the fuel rigs gone.

[schmenke]

yeah but we are getting cr@py narrow fronts from next year...

Really? I hadn't heard that. How much narrower?

[Koz]

Overtaking will take place only in the latter few laps of the race when the cars are light on fuel and drivers have made their final pit stop for a fresh set of tires.

Yeah, when pretty much all the positions have been settled and the gaps are too big to allow for real battles?
I don't like it.

[Rollo]

Probably we'll see farcical finish where cars run out of fuel or the last few laps in limp home mode.

Brundle thinks we'll get fuel economy runs. Though he did race the previous era I'm quite surprised he's in favour of refuelling no doubt spent too much time staring at timing screens looking for green and purple sectors.


Oh how we forget the days of 1986:
HOV_km_ipvs

In the German GP, Alain Prost tried in vain to push his car across the line. In fact only a few weeks before at San Marino, he started weaving back and forth across the track for the same reason, to slosh around what little fuel he had left in the car.

Earlier in the year, if memory serves me right the Spanish GP at Jerez was delayed because one of the cars had burst it's fuel tank on the line. One method of putting more fuel in the car was to chill it, and because it was so hot that day, the fuel expanded.

[Mark]

I tried to explain it to Karen about the wet / dry setups. That back in the day the teams were allowed to set up their car to run in the wet or dry, but these days they'd have to gamble on a dry setup most of the time in the wet.

Her response was along the lines of, "well that's just stupid" and I couldn't disagree!

[SGWilko]

One method of putting more fuel in the car was to chill it, and because it was so hot that day, the fuel expanded.

Berger's '89 Tamburello crash put a stop to fuel chilling.

[Mark]

There were stories a little while back about Ferrari having 'special' fuel which didn't weigh as much.

I think this will be an area of interest for next year, having a fuel which gives the longest range for the minimum weight.

[Rollo]

There were stories a little while back about Ferrari having 'special' fuel which didn't weigh as much.

I think this will be an area of interest for next year, having a fuel which gives the longest range for the minimum weight.

Um, no. The regulations with regards fuel are hideously tight. The 2009 regulations pretty well much carry over into 2010 and are mentioned in Article 19 of the 2010 regs.
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)

The so called "jungle juices" which were used in F1 pretty well much died by about 1990, with a further tweaking of the rules in 1996. The fuel in F1 is supposed to fall within the specifications of what normal motorists would bosh down their filler.

You'd need a chemist to tell you if a lighter fuel would be more advantageous, but I'd suspect that you'd need a heavier and denser fuel if you wanted it to go further; and then turn down the burn rates.

[wedge]

Even when the chaser does not have the strategic advantage we rarely see them making a pass.

More incentive to overtake because you have to pass to make the strategy work eg. in Japan this year Sutil (less fuel) trying to overtake Kovy; Hamilton (3 stopping) overtaking Massa (2stopping) in Turkey last year.

[wedge]

There were stories a little while back about Ferrari having 'special' fuel which didn't weigh as much.

I think this will be an area of interest for next year, having a fuel which gives the longest range for the minimum weight.

I remember this.

Shell came up a new fuel formula that weighed less

Edit:


http://www.shell.com/home/content/motorsport/ferrari/formula_one_2009/previous_seasons/2004/review/

Indeed, below the deceptively recognisable exterior lurked a brand-new Ferrari engine. Now built to last an entire race weekend, the engine was protected with a brand new Shell lubricant, Shell Helix SL785, as was its gearbox with a new blend of Shell Spirax. The unit was also powered with a new Shell fuel, the result of a long development programme. The fuel, Shell V-Power ULG58 was set to deliver more power to the car without compromising the efficiency but the real development with this evolution lay with its weight.

Significantly lighter than its predecessor, Shell V-Power ULG58 offered the team a remarkable strategic advantage by delivering the same power levels as before but with a lighter fuel load. Drivers could now modify their strategy, taking more liberty with tyres and with qualifying fuel loads.

[BillBald]

More incentive to overtake because you have to pass to make the strategy work eg. in Japan this year Sutil (less fuel) trying to overtake Kovy; Hamilton (3 stopping) overtaking Massa (2stopping) in Turkey last year.

The problem is that the examples are not that many.

On some circuits there was no overtaking even though you had drivers who had to overtake to make their strategy work.

What's going to be different next year?

It's the aero, or the brakes, or whatever you think is the problem. That has to be sorted out first, then we can have some good racing.

[wedge]

On some circuits there was no overtaking even though you had drivers who had to overtake to make their strategy work.

Some tracks will be harder to overtake than others.

There was the Force India vs Ferrari at Monza and Spa. It was tense fight, no overtaking even though they pitted at the same time for their last pit stops. That to me was more exciting than a driver with no fighting spirit who would rather drop back and wait for the pit window and clear air or race engineer decide on pit strategy.

Yes there a great unknowns, but I strongly feel that without fuel strategy there's greater incentive for drivers to overtake on the race track and not having to rely on pit wall to think for the drivers.

[BillBald]

There was the Force India vs Ferrari at Monza and Spa. It was tense fight, no overtaking even though they pitted at the same time for their last pit stops. That to me was more exciting than a driver with no fighting spirit who would rather drop back and wait for the pit window and clear air or race engineer decide on pit strategy.


I'm not sure why you call this a tense fight, when it was clear that the Force India wouldn't be able to overtake the Ferrari on the track.

It's a sign of an intelligent driver, if he finds himself completely unable to overtake, to drop back a little and avoid ruining his tyres, then maybe have another go a bit later.

But I don't believe that any drivers have been choosing not to overtake when they could do so. If the car in front is much slower, your strategy is going to be spoiled even if you can pass him when he stops for fuel, so no driver is going to sit and wait. If he's not much slower, you wouldn't be able to pass him anyway, so dropping back and looking after your tyres is the right approach, and it's what drivers will do next year as well.

[wedge]

I'm not sure why you call this a tense fight, when it was clear that the Force India wouldn't be able to overtake the Ferrari on the track.

Sutil vs. Kimi at Monza was a good fight. Sutil was trying hard, daring to brake later into the first chicane. Any difference to say Mansell vs. Senna at Monaco 1992 or Alonso vs. Schumi at Imola 2005?

We don't necessarily need more overtaking, we need cars running closer together at least making some effort to overtake.

[Mark]

But I don't believe that any drivers have been choosing not to overtake when they could do so. If the car in front is much slower, your strategy is going to be spoiled even if you can pass him when he stops for fuel, so no driver is going to sit and wait. If he's not much slower, you wouldn't be able to pass him anyway, so dropping back and looking after your tyres is the right approach, and it's what drivers will do next year as well.

Indeed. The strategy will be to sit back and wait for your competitor to pit, then put in 1 or 2 blindingly fast laps before your own pit stop and pass him in the pits. So somewhat like they have now, except there is no worry about running out of fuel by going longer.

Although Martin Brundle said at Japan that the the strategies we've seen recently will be turned on their head. We've been used to the car who pits last having the biggest advantage as obviously just before your pit stop you're light and can put in some quick lap times, but once your brimmed with fuel again the car runs slower.

But next year we'll see cars pit for tyres and then go faster than they were before. So perhaps the pit passing strategy will be to take a gamble to get into the pits early, put fresh tyres on, then have an amazingly quick out lap so when your opponent pits you emerge ahead of them -- and thusly deny them the opportunity to do a quick out lap as you're ahead of them already!

[DexDexter]

I remember the times before refueling and I have to say it wasn't more exciting than the racing is now. One could argue that now they are waiting for the stops and next year they'll have to overtake cause the refuelling strategy will not be there. Well, next year they have to save tires, so if they try to overtake somebody too hard, they will destroy their tires and an extra pitstop might be needed, and nobody wants that. It's not going to make the races any more interesting and with empty tank qualifying, the probability of thebest cars being at the front is greater than this year. Of course some cars may work better when they are light/heavy but usually a good car is good no matter whether is light or heavy. Processions ahead.

[Garry Walker]

Get ready to see many processions. Little overtaking will be changed to no overtaking.

[BillBald]

I think the best strategy will be to try to avoid stopping for tyres.

Many people here remember the old days when Nigel Mansell would stop for fresh tyres, then come roaring back to fight for the win.

With the field much closer these days, even a quick pit stop will lose several places, and the difficulty of overtaking will mean that you would never get all of those places back. Even if you could, your tyres would be finished and you would have to pit again.

Some people have been complaining about the retention of the 'use both kinds of tyre' rule. In fact that's the only thing which may save next year's F1. If drivers were allowed to, they would aim to run without stopping, in a slow procession.

[Mark]

Some people have been complaining about the retention of the 'use both kinds of tyre' rule. In fact that's the only thing which may save next year's F1. If drivers were allowed to, they would aim to run without stopping, in a slow procession.

But it does mess up strategy.
i.e. run soft tyres and do more stops vs run harder tyres and do less stops. The teams aren't going to be able to make that choice.

[BillBald]

I don't think that running soft tyres and doing more stops will normally be a viable strategy, unless overtaking can be made easier.

If you can't overtake a guy who's running hard tyres and looking after them by driving fairly slowly, you don't get the benefit of your soft tyres, and you will have to pit to change tyres.

Then you will find that, because the pole man has been running slowly, the field is all bunched up and you lose a lot of places by stopping.

[wedge]

If you can't overtake a guy who's running hard tyres and looking after them by driving fairly slowly, you don't get the benefit of your soft tyres, and you will have to pit to change tyres.

The flip side is that if you need to save your tyres and but having to defend - that itself takes life out of the tyres by going off line closing the door and taking tighter lines into the corners.

[harsha]

stupid rules,stupid consequences ?

[rabf1]

I think we will find that there are significant difference in the ability of the teams to run well on the vastly different fuel loads produced by the new rule. Cars that are fast early in the race my be pigs near the end and vice-versa.

[BillBald]

The flip side is that if you need to save your tyres and but having to defend - that itself takes life out of the tyres by going off line closing the door and taking tighter lines into the corners.

But you won't need to defend if the guy behind drops back to preserve his tyres.

I think you may get some races where everyone goes for it (on the tracks where overtaking is relatively easy), but on many tracks it will be a slow procession.

[ozrevhead]

stupid rules,stupid consequences ?
i think so

this rule is the dumbest thing thats ever happend to F1 - alot of things need fixing and this wasnt one of them

[wedge]

stupid rules,stupid consequences ?

I'd say the opposite is true.

Here's a stupid consequence of refuelling:

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/9159/capturadepantalla200910h.png

[wedge]

I think you may get some races where everyone goes for it (on the tracks where overtaking is relatively easy), but on many tracks it will be a slow procession.

I agree but I'm erring towards the former.

Generally there will always be good and bad races in a given season.

[DexDexter]

Cars that are fast early in the race my be pigs near the end and vice-versa.

Looking at the time before refueling, that really didn't happen too often. IMO the good cars will work heavy and light and they will be the ones in the front.

[harsha]

I'd say the opposite is true.

Here's a stupid consequence of refuelling:

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/9159/capturadepantalla200910h.png

maybe,but then a similar accident might have happened if the tyre is not fastened properly to the car when it's leaving the pits and it ends up on track causing an incident...

you can't blame that accident on the re-fuelling system...blame it on the ineptitude of the mclaren pits,but not on re-fuelling.

[jens]

Considering that the tyre-wear is higher with heavier fuel load, may drivers race with softer tyre on the shorter first stint and harder tyre on the second longer stint? This could be the main tricky strategical question, because as I can see, in this topic it has been proposed that drivers would race on harder tyres in the longer first stint. But then again drivers in inferior positions may easily switch for faster and fresh softs earlier to pitpass the rivals, who then should try to avoid losing their track position by reacting immediately. The interesting thing is that - unlike now - drivers, who make their pistops earlier, are likely to gain with pitstops (fresher tyres, but unlike now - still similar fuel load), maybe expect if softs are changed for hards. Backmarkers will likely start races on harder compound (difficult to pass, so why waste softs in the beginning?) and then try to switch for softs in the right moment to try to gain more in the end.

Generally qualifying will be even more important than it is now - due to the ban of refueling there will be less pitstops and also less opportunities to overcome qualifying disadvantage. I don't see much more passing than now - 2009 despite radical rule changes shows that passing is still almost as difficult as it has been previously. Also frontrunners can "control" the race better - they don't need to pit on a certain lap for fuel, but they can wait and stay out exactly as long or little as needed to avoid traffic after pitstop. At least the much-hyped KERS will be dropped for next year - it was hailed as an "overtaking device", but in reality it has been counter-productive as we have seen on multiple occasions, especially when a KERS-car is in front of a non-KERS.

Also I suspect we may see less wet weather surprises. By this I mean that during the era of refueling drivers may have needed to pit for extra fuel in tricky conditions without knowing, which tyres are the best at that moment. And if weather change has fallen right into refueling pitstop window for someone, that guy could have gained a lot. For instance Button/Frentzen USA'03, Heidfeld MAL'09 are great examples of that. But with the new rules, drivers don't need to take such risks - just stay out on the same set of tyres until it's clear that other tyres will be more suitable for new conditions.

Overall, I'd expect one pitstop per race with maybe two on circuits, which eat the softer tyre a lot, but where softs are also significantly faster than hards. Track position means everything. Second pitstops will be made only if a front-runner feels that he is in a strong position to finish high even after last pitstop.

---

One more guess. Considering Ferrari's famous cock-ups in the beginning of this season, I guess they'll add one more and run out of fuel at least for once next year. :D

[Easy Drifter]

I pity the designers of the cars that will be using the Cosworth engines. Nobody knows how thirsty they will be so the designers will have to err on the side of caution and design a fuel capacity probably larger than needed.
The teams running current engines know the fuel consumption so will be able to design a tank to a known factor.

[DexDexter]

I pity the designers of the cars that will be using the Cosworth engines. Nobody knows how thirsty they will be so the designers will have to err on the side of caution and design a fuel capacity probably larger than needed.
The teams running current engines know the fuel consumption so will be able to design a tank to a known factor.

That's a very good point, so they'll have to make a compromise, which in F1 usually means being slow.

[ClarkFan]

The answer is to allow setup changes overnight, but restricted to things like wings, springs, dampers etc.

The problem before Parc Ferme is that the teams would spend all night taking the car completely apart then putting it back together again. Which actually resulted in much poorer reliability!
Back when there was less ability to adjust cars on the fly, the race and qualifying trims were often very different. The practice session to watch for a tip on the race was the Sunday morning warm-up, when the cars went out on full tanks. Often the fasest car was not the pole sitter.

ClarkFan

P.S. And it would be really nice if they fixed the aerodynamics to make passing easier. Just ban rear diffusers and make the front wing complexes much smaller and the problems from following a car closely should go away. Cars could even slipstream again!

[harsha]

That's a very good point, so they'll have to make a compromise, which in F1 usually means being slow.

they could just get lucky as the Brawn team did in modifying the existing design to suit the Mclaren engine...As they said,no one knew how the car was gonna behave to the forced engine change