Refuelling

[N4D13]

No, please.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118991

[philipbain]

No, please.

Completely agreed, I dont see how in-race refuelling does anything for the "spectacle" except making pit stops a lot more dangerous. It also removes the skill factor of a quick tyre change, even at reduced fuel loads required now a half-tank fill will still take 5 seconds or so, double what is required for a decent tyre change!

What F1 really needs to do and the one thing that the teams consistently refuse to do - change the underfloor! The flat floor which has been a part of F1 in a couple of different forms since 1983 (1983-1994 was a completely flat floor, 1995-present a flat floor with a 50mm step for the sidepods) has increased the reliance on creating downforce from the wings and top surfaces of the car, these are much more easily disturbed by aerodynamic turbulence, resulting in processions at aero-dependant tracks and the need for artificial aids such as DRS to make passing possible. there is no need for 1000BHP engines and suchlike if the cars have a fully developed underfloor and much smaller wings as the reduction in drag would see much higher speeds without the expense involved in such gimmicks.

[Bezza]

I think refuelling and the other 2017 proposed changes are a massive step in the right direction.

The cars should be faster and louder, and drivers should be able to push at 100% for longer. Refuelling helps this as it keeps the car weight down through the race, therefore the cars go quicker and the tyres don't wear out as fast.

I understand what you are saying that it takes away some of the skill of fast pitstops, but I'd rather see better action on track than in the pitlane. I want to see Hamilton, Vettel, et al pushing to the limit, not "managing" their race.

The rule changes are good but they still need to go a bit further - DRS needs to be removed ASAP. It is artificial and has taken away the skill of overtaking.

[Arnold Triyudho Wardono]

Refueling is only for Indycar..xD

[Starter]

I think refuelling and the other 2017 proposed changes are a massive step in the right direction.

The cars should be faster and louder, and drivers should be able to push at 100% for longer. Refuelling helps this as it keeps the car weight down through the race, therefore the cars go quicker and the tyres don't wear out as fast.

I understand what you are saying that it takes away some of the skill of fast pitstops, but I'd rather see better action on track than in the pitlane. I want to see Hamilton, Vettel, et al pushing to the limit, not "managing" their race.

The rule changes are good but they still need to go a bit further - DRS needs to be removed ASAP. It is artificial and has taken away the skill of overtaking.
Good points, but you haven't addressed philipbain's thoughts on overtaking. I suspect it would be even more difficult with your proposal and no DRS.

[N. Jones]

I loved refueling. When the FIA took it away in 2010? 2011? I was not happy; but since then I have no problem with it being gone.
get rid of the stupid tire rule and let teams choose what they want to use!

[Mark]

The proposals are pretty positive. F1 should be about the fastest cars going as fast as possible.

[COD]

Less aero, smaller wings etc. And then steel suspension parts that wont brake from smallest touch

[Rollo]

No, please.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118991

Oh the irony of showing us a Benetton in a pitstop when talking about refuelling...

It is Benetton who provides the proof of why refuelling can be dangerous:

http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2014/03/08/1226849/020632-6d325e28-a685-11e3-94c1-d923b8b77352.jpg

[journeyman racer]

Unless it's a mileage race, refuelling is pointless.

[Hawkmoon]

Generally I think it's a step in the right direction even if they are just dusting of aspects of the sport's past. I can do without the refueling though. I was never a great fan of races being won by the smartest guy on the pit wall rather than the quickest guy behind the wheel.

[steveaki13]

While I agree Hawkmoon

Lets face it. At the moment its not fastest guy wins really. I mean Mercedes have a massive advantage.

Generally through races, there is a lot of cruising tyre and fuel saving. So we don't have drivers making the difference now alot of the time.

So whether its fuel strategy or tyre saving..... it still all means its not all in the drivers and cars hands.

[inimitablestoo]

I've got no problem with refuelling per se - it's just that its removal in 2010 was supposed to be about improving the racing. Mind you, its reintroduction in 1994 was supposed to be about improving the racing. We'll see how long it lasts this time...

And hopefully the new skidplates that create more sparks don't pose an additional hazard...

[yodasarmpit]

Still some way to go, remove the fuel flow rate and free up the number of available tyres - that in addition to free choice of tyres and refuelling creates more strategies and reduces the nonsense of tyre and fuel management to the extent it is now.

[truefan72]

Generally I think it's a step in the right direction even if they are just dusting of aspects of the sport's past. I can do without the refueling though. I was never a great fan of races being won by the smartest guy on the pit wall rather than the quickest guy behind the wheel.

well at the moment the pitstops are still a deciding factor in races where a poor pitstop can cost you severely (latest example was hamliton in spain) so that has always been the case. I like refeuling because it allows cars to go lighter and faster and gives teams a legitimate strategic option. I will welcome it if it comes and not worry about it if it doesn't. But if it does then we won't have to worry about fuel saving laps, running out of fuel at the end of the race or all that rubbish about fuel flow regulation, sensors, etc.

[AAReagles]

I think refuelling and the other 2017 proposed changes are a massive step in the right direction.

.... but I'd rather see better action on track than in the pitlane...

Likewise

[Tazio]

The proposals are pretty positive. F1 should be about the fastest cars going as fast as possible.
Agree, bring back refueling!

[Starter]

The proposals are pretty positive. F1 should be about the fastest cars going as fast as possible.
If this is true, then why don't we have any motor of any size, any fuel load; any tires at all; no chassis regulations,; etc. etc.?

[steveaki13]

Its a balance. If the cars where to be as fast as possible. They probably wouldn't be able to follow about 5 seconds behind because of Aero. :D

[The Black Knight]

I'm totally on for refuelling returning. I was just saying it to my buddy at the Spanish GP that it needed to return. It allows for innovative strategies and means teams pitstops aren't as predictable as they are now. It was stupid to ban refuelling in the first place and, at the start of the race, the cars just look ultra slow.

The rule changes set out are a massive step in the right direction. I want to see drivers flat out, balls to the wall, not gingerly driving around to preserve tyre life.

[The Black Knight]

Its a balance. If the cars where to be as fast as possible. They probably wouldn't be able to follow about 5 seconds behind because of Aero. :D
Exactly! Take every gimmick that has been created throughout the years and put it on a car and you'd probably just have a driver in a car as a passenger turning a wheel, if even that!

[zako85]

Formula 1 needs to decide what it wants to be. Does it want to be as road relevant as possible, while acting as a sort of development lab for future technologies or does it want to be a great show where competition involved fast fire breathing monsters that are extreme in every way? It seems like Formula 1 from 2014 took the middle road, and consequently failed to impress both the technophiles, who argue the WEC is now the pinnacle of the race car technology development, and the ordinary fans who complain that cars are not as fast or loud enough as they used to me.

In my opinion, F1 should tilt slightly towards the wishes of spectators. Make the cars faster, louder, and badder. Get rid of fuel flow limits and the rev limits, perhaps allow refueling, more engines, but keep the current engine formula. As a result F1, would become badder and better racing series, and a good show for spectators, while still racing with a thoroughly modern drivetrain. Of course, these changes could make racing more expensive, but those could be partially fixed with customer cars, if they were ever allowed, but that's a different topic.

[anfield5]

NO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!. Refueliing is only an idea to allow for mistakes in pitstops, to allow cars to change position on the track.

Why refuel when cars can easily carry enough for a short race, just another crazy gimmick.

Some of the other changes/ideas seem ok i.e. faster cars, wider track widths etc. More noise is good, but not if it is artificial. Making the driver start the car without too much computer interference is good, how about manual gearboxes with a lever?

Simple things like more mechanical grip and less aero would be better, cars could follow more closely without the backwash of the car in front ruining their performance.

How about reducing the design restrictions, to allow designers to actually design, rather than produce a kitset from a blueprint? i.e set parameters, maily around safety, then say to the designers - go do your jobs!

[Mekola]

Another time, refuelling... Hope not to see another incident like Verstappen Sr. one in 1994 or Albers one in 2007.

[anfield5]

Verstappen's fire b all was caused by Benetton trying to cheat by disabling the flow rate valve. This is another reason not to do it, as teams will spend stupid amounts of money to beat the system

[steveaki13]

Was Albers fire when in the Minardi? If thats the one I am thinking of, I believe that would be 2005.

Sorry I love being picky :p

[journeyman racer]

In my opinion, F1 should tilt slightly towards the wishes of spectators. .
Are the spectators going to pay to build cars?


well at the moment the pitstops are still a deciding factor in races where a poor pitstop can cost you severely (latest example was hamliton in spain) .
lol

[The Black Knight]

Spectators do build to pay the cars. They are the fans whom are ultimately both the customer of F1 buying merchandise, tickets and selling T.V. subscriptions which ultimately corresponds to more money for the team. The fans are also the main market to which most manufacturers sell their product. It's why manufacturers chose F1 both to develop new technologies but then also to sell them onto customers i.e. the fans in their next generation cars. I'm far more likely to buy a new car, and have done so, of which some of the technology is originally derived from an F1 car than, say, a Datsun.

[truefan72]

all you guys pointing out the couple of times there was a pit lane incident because of the fueling have selective memories in terms of its relative danger. You can always point to one particular aspect and then pick a few incidents and claim the entire operation is unsafe. For example, changing tires has probably had more problematic incidents than refueling. Like loose wheel nuts, improperly mounted tires, etc. Just this weekend the lotus (or was it mclaren) jack man was sent to the hospital with a broken ankle, so should we ban, jacking the cars ?

[anfield5]

It is not the danger that is the reason not to bring refuelling back, it is just another artificial way to mix things up. F1 has gone to the dogs since these pathetic gimmicks have been introduced, it certainly doesn't need more of them.

Plus the powers that be are continually moaning about cost cutting, so they plan to introduce a thing that will cost teams oodles more money ie. the refuelling rigs themselves, transporting said rigs, the astronomical R&D cost associated with the rigs, not to mention the money they will spend on trying to engineer a loophole in the refuelling rules, to gain 0.1 seconds per refill

[The Black Knight]

It is not the danger that is the reason not to bring refuelling back, it is just another artificial way to mix things up. F1 has gone to the dogs since these pathetic gimmicks have been introduced, it certainly doesn't need more of them.

Plus the powers that be are continually moaning about cost cutting, so they plan to introduce a thing that will cost teams oodles more money ie. the refuelling rigs themselves, transporting said rigs, the astronomical R&D cost associated with the rigs, not to mention the money they will spend on trying to engineer a loophole in the refuelling rules, to gain 0.1 seconds per refill

How is it artificial exactly? All cars have to refuel. DRS, on the other hand, is completely artificial and needs to go as far as I'm concerned. I have no issue with refueling returning because the cars will no longer be churning around the circuit like tanks at the start of a race. As far as I am concerned it should never have been banned in the first place.

I also feel that pitstops are far more dangerous now than they were before. How many times over the last couple of years have we seen drivers go out of the pits with a wheel only half on? This is because the tyre men are under so much pressure to finish a tyre change in 2.5 seconds that mistakes in judgements are inevitable and, to be frank, I watch F1 for the on track action, not the off track stuff so bring back refueling so we can have proper flat out racing again.

[AndyL]

Just this weekend the lotus (or was it mclaren) jack man was sent to the hospital with a broken ankle, so should we ban, jacking the cars ?

I know you raised this as a reductio ad absurdum, but actually it's not completely crazy. Plenty of other (admittedly heavier) formulae don't have a jack man, and instead have pneumatic jacks built in to the cars.

[Tazio]

How is it artificial exactly? All cars have to refuel. DRS, on the other hand, is completely artificial and needs to go as far as I'm concerned. I have no issue with refueling returning because the cars will no longer be churning around the circuit like tanks at the start of a race. As far as I am concerned it should never have been banned in the first place.

I also feel that pitstops are far more dangerous now than they were before. How many times over the last couple of years have we seen drivers go out of the pits with a wheel only half on? This is because the tyre men are under so much pressure to finish a tyre change in 2.5 seconds that mistakes in judgements are inevitable and, to be frank, I watch F1 for the on track action, not the off track stuff so bring back refueling so we can have proper flat out racing again.

Nice post Blackie, especially the part about wheel guys being under less pressure in a re-fueling situation.
But just to play devils advocate; I can see how freakin' DRS could be applied to road cars as the principal is very simply applied physics, and when used on----oh lets say a high speed interstate (or whatever you blokes call them) in cars of the future that are safe (even for Asians :angel:) to drive at speeds high enough to require a rear wing, let's say 200 mph being an accepted speed limit. Cars could use a DRS to save fuel on very long straights as it requires more power to overcome the drag of a rear wing, thus the use of more energy.
Hell-fire you could even put it on the front wings also if they were outfitted with them :crazy:
As it currently applies and is instituted in the F1 regulations I also agree that it is a bit unsporting and takes away from the purity and equity of the competition.
However F1 got its cherry popped a long time ago ;)

[anfield5]

How is it artificial exactly? All cars have to refuel. DRS, on the other hand, is completely artificial and needs to go as far as I'm concerned. I have no issue with refueling returning because the cars will no longer be churning around the circuit like tanks at the start of a race. As far as I am concerned it should never have been banned in the first place.

I also feel that pitstops are far more dangerous now than they were before. How many times over the last couple of years have we seen drivers go out of the pits with a wheel only half on? This is because the tyre men are under so much pressure to finish a tyre change in 2.5 seconds that mistakes in judgements are inevitable and, to be frank, I watch F1 for the on track action, not the off track stuff so bring back refueling so we can have proper flat out racing again.

I agree about DRS etc don't need it, hasn't added anything to the sport, has simply dumbed it down for the none F1 public.

Refuelling itself isnt artificial, but it adds an artificial element to the race in as much as, it tries to force a pit error into the mix, and artificially mix up the result because of it. Blaming heavy fuel for the 'churning around like tanks' doesnt follow. Refuelling was only reintroduced (by Brabham I think) in the 80's-90's.) Before that F1 cars were quite able to RACE on a single tank of lucazade.

I agree that F1 is about on track action, so instead of having cars in the pits more and longer refuelling, make it so they can race on track. As I have said often before the Mid 70's to mid 80's was the hey day of F1. No refuelling, at times no tyre stops and cars RACED on track for the entire GP. You cant tell me that with all of the tech advancements in the last 30+ years, this is no longer possible.

[The Black Knight]

I agree about DRS etc don't need it, hasn't added anything to the sport, has simply dumbed it down for the none F1 public.

Refuelling itself isnt artificial, but it adds an artificial element to the race in as much as, it tries to force a pit error into the mix, and artificially mix up the result because of it. Blaming heavy fuel for the 'churning around like tanks' doesnt follow. Refuelling was only reintroduced (by Brabham I think) in the 80's-90's.) Before that F1 cars were quite able to RACE on a single tank of lucazade.

I agree that F1 is about on track action, so instead of having cars in the pits more and longer refuelling, make it so they can race on track. As I have said often before the Mid 70's to mid 80's was the hey day of F1. No refuelling, at times no tyre stops and cars RACED on track for the entire GP. You cant tell me that with all of the tech advancements in the last 30+ years, this is no longer possible.

I disagree with this. It doesn't artificially mix up the result anymiore than the current pit format. It make the result less straight forward to predict because pit stops can vary and thus makes it far more interesting to viewers. The issue with F1 at the moment is that it's too predictable. You can never get rid of the human error factor in pitstops. By what you're saying while there are pitstops it will always artificially mix up the results because pit stop duration is always going to be a factor. As long as there are pitstops there will be room for error and we can't change that but what we can do is have refueling and spice it up a little with different strategies - which I personally think is great.

As for the 80s I was a little young to remember but the cars were a lot slower then than they are now. If there's a way for F1 to bounce around a circuit at high speed without refueling or pitting then I'm all for it but back then there were other concerns such as managing the car afaik etc. Each generation has its challenges but I used to love the sort of flat out racing that we had in the 90s. It was a proper race from start to finish, with drivers flat out the entire way. I didn't necessarily mind if there was huge amounts of over taking. I'd rather see one great over taking maneuver in a race than a dozen DRS overtakes. Quality over quantity any day.

[N. Jones]

Are these supposed changes really going to "spice things up"? The problem is money and the absurd amount people have to put up to be competitive.

[Hawkmoon]

If refueling is making a comeback I'd like to see them retain a fuel tank size that would allow for a team to try a range of strategies. Coupled that with a free choice of tyre compounds and you introduce variables into the equation and variables often make for good races. If they make the fuel tanks too small then each team knows that everybody has to stop at least twice and you get everybody on the same strategy.

I also hope they don't make the drivers qualify on race fuel. I hated that rule.

[The Black Knight]

If refueling is making a comeback I'd like to see them retain a fuel tank size that would allow for a team to try a range of strategies. Coupled that with a free choice of tyre compounds and you introduce variables into the equation and variables often make for good races. If they make the fuel tanks too small then each team knows that everybody has to stop at least twice and you get everybody on the same strategy.

I also hope they don't make the drivers qualify on race fuel. I hated that rule.

Me too, it was a stupid rule and you never got to see the cars at their fastest because of it.

[philipbain]

In all likelihood refuelling will not make a reappearance - the teams don't seem to want it, as was confirmed by Mr. Ginger Spice to Sky Sports F1 earlier today in their Monaco Qualifying program. Also one of the reasons for outlawing it in the first place was because of the expense of transporting and maintaining the equipment and it was muted to return on the proviso that the teams didn't find it prohibitively costly which they will find it if there is appetite to bring it back!

[schmenke]

Poll please.

[journeyman racer]

Spectators do build to pay the cars. They are the fans whom are ultimately both the customer of F1 buying merchandise, tickets and selling T.V. subscriptions which ultimately corresponds to more money for the team. The fans are also the main market to which most manufacturers sell their product. It's why manufacturers chose F1 both to develop new technologies but then also to sell them onto customers i.e. the fans in their next generation cars. I'm far more likely to buy a new car, and have done so, of which some of the technology is originally derived from an F1 car than, say, a Datsun.
This is a notion bandied about to make insignificant people, those with the least at stake (aka, the fans), feel important.