FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[formula1man]

i must admit that since they have changed the car designs they are able to get a lot closer to the car in front, and when they get rid of the double diffuser next year they will be a lot closer, but there are two rules that really prevent overtaking,

The Engine rule, (only 8 per year) means they can't get too close or push too hard to protect the engine,

The full fuel tanks, means they need to drive economically not all out.

So they need to find a way to keep costs down, but allow lots more engines, and the fuel rule i dont know whether they go back to refuelling or make them start with more than enough fuel to finish the race.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

i must admit that since they have changed the car designs they are able to get a lot closer to the car in front, and when they get rid of the double diffuser next year they will be a lot closer, but there are two rules that really prevent overtaking,

The Engine rule, (only 8 per year) means they can't get too close or push too hard to protect the engine,

The full fuel tanks, means they need to drive economically not all out.

So they need to find a way to keep costs down, but allow lots more engines, and the fuel rule i dont know whether they go back to refuelling or make them start with more than enough fuel to finish the race.

If an engine is damaged whilst drafting too closely, it's not because they only have seven other engines, it's damaged because they have engineered too small a radiator to properly cool the engine when air flow is less than optimal.

Likewise, if a driver has to back off for fear of running out of petrol, that doesn't happen because refueling is prohibited, it happens either because those same engineers spec'ed too small a fuel tank when they built the car (a la Virgin) or they failed to fill it adequately before the race.

[smokin]

i must admit that since they have changed the car designs they are able to get a lot closer to the car in front, and when they get rid of the double diffuser next year they will be a lot closer, but there are two rules that really prevent overtaking,

The Engine rule, (only 8 per year) means they can't get too close or push too hard to protect the engine,

The full fuel tanks, means they need to drive economically not all out.

So they need to find a way to keep costs down, but allow lots more engines, and the fuel rule i dont know whether they go back to refuelling or make them start with more than enough fuel to finish the race.

If an engine is damaged whilst drafting too closely, it's not because they only have seven other engines, it's damaged because they have engineered too small a radiator to properly cool the engine when air flow is less than optimal.

Likewise, if a driver has to back off for fear of running out of petrol, that doesn't happen because refueling is prohibited, it happens either because those same engineers spec'ed too small a fuel tank when they built the car (a la Virgin) or they failed to fill it adequately before the race.

The cars are deliberately underfuelled for additional pace during the early part of the race. Allowing refuelling would eliminate this.

[Bubbie]

I would like to see Aero become less of a factor and mechanical grip made more of a factor. Give them back the fatter front tires and outlaw some aero. Refuelling should be part of the race instead of this "fuel conservation" nonsense. Get rid of the "you need to use two sets of tires" rules from the races. Also return to higher revs and more HP in the engines. Make drivers hesitate to use it all out, right now it seems they will run them flat out with impunity.

[Narcil]

TBH i don't understand the engine limit rule. The cost of developing an engine to last 2 or 3 races far outweighs the cost of building 4-5 more engines per year.

Even if you consider all the teams together say Mercedes, they supply 3 teams, so the cost of developing that engine to last 2-3 more races as opposed to building 15 extra engines which will all detonate 30seconds after the warm down lap probably doesn't add up to save money its all just a public image thing.

[JessSpock]

It's as if they want to appear to have a slightly greener/cheaper image by not refuelling and by limiting engine numbers. Even though everyone knows how much money is envolved and that by trying to save engines then needing to use extra results in money penalty seems slightly pointless. If they had the extra and could refuel drivers wouldn't need to be so cautious.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

The cars are deliberately underfuelled for additional pace during the early part of the race. Allowing refuelling would eliminate this.

Apart from the fact that I do not accept your premise, I'm not sure how you would know that. The teams no longer announce fuel loads and the FIA keep results of the post-race weigh-ins confidential (so long as the car passes) so unless you have insider information from every team on the grid, I question how you would know how much fuel any given car started with or what strategy was used to arrive at that figure.

Also, Vettel turned a 1:19.573 in Q2 on hard tires with naught but vapours in the tank. He also set fast lap of the race on the final circuit at 1:22.362. Webber ran 120.235 on the hards in Q2 and his fastest lap of the race was 1:22.651. If either complained that their tires were going away that near the end, neither the telly nor the F1 press have made any remark to it, from which I conclude that Vettel finished the race with enough fuel remaining to slow him by three seconds per lap and Webber by two. They clearly were not under-fueled.

[madbrad]

The cars are deliberately underfuelled for additional pace during the early part of the race. Allowing refuelling would eliminate this.

Apart from the fact that I do not accept your premise, I'm not sure how you would know that. The teams no longer announce fuel loads and the FIA keep results of the post-race weigh-ins confidential (so long as the car passes) so unless you have insider information from every team on the grid, I question how you would know how much fuel any given car started with or what strategy was used to arrive at that figure.

Also, Vettel turned a 1:19.573 in Q2 on hard tires with naught but vapours in the tank. He also set fast lap of the race on the final circuit at 1:22.362. Webber ran 120.235 on the hards in Q2 and his fastest lap of the race was 1:22.651. If either complained that their tires were going away that near the end, neither the telly nor the F1 press have made any remark to it, from which I conclude that Vettel finished the race with enough fuel remaining to slow him by three seconds per lap and Webber by two. They clearly were not under-fueled.

The comentators talk about it all the time. They can't all be wrong all the time. They apparently don't have enough fuel to run the whole race flat out on regular fighting mode. That would make the car too heavy to be competitive. They run on fuel saver mode when they can get away with it, and they end up having enough fuel to finish. The mode that saves fuel also reduces horsepower so you need to use a little give and take and strategy. They set great times at the end because they are so much lighter then. They could possibly be in non fuel save mode, or even if they are in fuel saving mode they could still be quick thanks to the weight loss.


refuelling is dangerous. When they brought it back, most people in the sport decried it. I sat on pins and needles during every pit stop. I've seen what can happen. I mean, we all have. Steve Matchett was the rear jackman in Jos' fireball and was pulled to safety by a Williams mechanic.
CART or Champcar has(or did have) more frequent fuel incidents, and the flames are invisible! there have been some awfull burns to guys there. It's really bad there.

What I would like to see is:
no refuelling,
no mandatory use of both compounds,
qualifying tires,
and race tires that grip like a sunuvabitch and won't last a third of the race, with the corresponding increase to the number of tires allowed.
That would make pitstops less predictable for spectators and put a stop to the dull end when everyone knows there will be no more pit stops.

[smokin]

The cars are deliberately underfuelled for additional pace during the early part of the race. Allowing refuelling would eliminate this.

Apart from the fact that I do not accept your premise, I'm not sure how you would know that. The teams no longer announce fuel loads and the FIA keep results of the post-race weigh-ins confidential (so long as the car passes) so unless you have insider information from every team on the grid, I question how you would know how much fuel any given car started with or what strategy was used to arrive at that figure.

Also, Vettel turned a 1:19.573 in Q2 on hard tires with naught but vapours in the tank. He also set fast lap of the race on the final circuit at 1:22.362. Webber ran 120.235 on the hards in Q2 and his fastest lap of the race was 1:22.651. If either complained that their tires were going away that near the end, neither the telly nor the F1 press have made any remark to it, from which I conclude that Vettel finished the race with enough fuel remaining to slow him by three seconds per lap and Webber by two. They clearly were not under-fueled.

The comentators talk about it all the time. They can't all be wrong all the time. They apparently don't have enough fuel to run the whole race flat out on regular fighting mode. That would make the car too heavy to be competitive. They run on fuel saver mode when they can get away with it, and they end up having enough fuel to finish. The mode that saves fuel also reduces horsepower so you need to use a little give and take and strategy. They set great times at the end because they are so much lighter then. They could possibly be in non fuel save mode, or even if they are in fuel saving mode they could still be quick thanks to the weight loss.


refuelling is dangerous. When they brought it back, most people in the sport decried it. I sat on pins and needles during every pit stop. I've seen what can happen. I mean, we all have. Steve Matchett was the rear jackman in Jos' fireball and was pulled to safety by a Williams mechanic.
CART or Champcar has(or did have) more frequent fuel incidents, and the flames are invisible! there have been some awfull burns to guys there. It's really bad there.

What I would like to see is:
no refuelling,
no mandatory use of both compounds,
qualifying tires,
and race tires that grip like a sunuvabitch and won't last a third of the race, with the corresponding increase to the number of tires allowed.
That would make pitstops less predictable for spectators and put a stop to the dull end when everyone knows there will be no more pit stops.

On reflection, I agree with you about refuelling. There's not only the fire hazard but the danger of a car taking off before the hose is removed as in the Massa incident (at Singapore?). I also like the tyre idea.

[Bubbie]

With everyone in firesuits in the pits how dangerous is the refueling in pit stops? For instance, in the incident last year when someone took off with the hose attached and then the car behind's brakes or exhaust lit the leaking fuel on fire, I don't think anyone was injured? From what I saw it was a flash of fire around the car and no further harm done.

Having the ability to work fuel into your strategy I think reduces the chance of a processional race.With current excellent F1 safety measures, the risk is negligible.

I do agree that the invisible fires in Indycars is insane. I remember back when I watched Indycars (CART was the series and the racing was good) and there were some incidents with people jumping around and nobody understood why, until their car stared deforming due to the heat and they were able to see the heat haze from the fire.

[madbrad]

With everyone in firesuits in the pits how dangerous is the refueling in pit stops? For instance, in the incident last year when someone took off with the hose attached and then the car behind's brakes or exhaust lit the leaking fuel on fire, I don't think anyone was injured? From what I saw it was a flash of fire around the car and no further harm done.

It doesn't mean harm can't be done, and it has. Verstappen did suffer facial burns, either from the fire or the extinguisher, and not all crew memebers have firesuits. Steve Matchett did not. Shorts and a button up shirt.
Also ther ewas an occasion when Diniz suffered a flameout while out on the track after a pit stop, and IIRC in the last year or 2 there was one or two fire events during refuelling, not the ones where hoses were carried away either. It's harrowing every time.

[Bubbie]

What year did the Steve Matchett item take place? I don't see anyone in the pits while the cars are active in anything but firesuits. Even the BBC commentators wear them.

[madbrad]

What year did the Steve Matchett item take place? I don't see anyone in the pits while the cars are active in anything but firesuits. Even the BBC commentators wear them.

This was the famous Jos Vestappen refuelling fireball in the 1994 German GP, the first year of refuelling. in those days there were only 2 people that wore anything to protect them from fire.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

...The comentators talk about it all the time. They can't all be wrong all the time. They apparently don't have enough fuel to run the whole race flat out on regular fighting mode....

I beg to differ. The commentators hear the teams radio the driver, telling them change fuel management to a more economical setting. That doesn't mean the team deliberately under fueled the car.

They calculate a fuel load based on the car's demonstrated performance in practise and the anticipated weather at race time. Their ideal result is to have the car arrive at the paddock after the race with precisely one litre remaining, just enough for the FIA's fuel test. They especially figure to save the odd litre at tracks where the safety car is a common feature or if rain is anticipated. If either fails to materialise, or if the race pace proves to be faster than anticipated (which has been often the case this season), fuel consumption will be higher than anticipated. The team that best anticipates actual fuel consumption enjoys a considerable advantage, so they roll the dice. Sometimes they come up craps.

Race times are faster with refueling. That's been proved. Safer? Perhaps, but, in the 21st Century, the risk to pit personnel from fuel fires is far less than being run over by a car (or hit by an escaping tyre).

Refueling was eliminated for two reason. First, it reduces the team's cost of campaigning. Apparently it is quite expensive to haul that "hot refueling" equipment all over hell and half of Texas. Second, race straggity no longer is affected by the need to refuel. That means more of the competition occurs on the track and less on pit lane, and that was something the fans were clamoring for.

[mafiyo]

No refuelling is the reason why f1 race is like how it is now. No need to stop for fuel means the best strategy is to stop once which is mandatory n to change to another tyre spec, which is also mandatory. Race mostly will end with the position after everybody pits. Most time that position is the same starting grid position or the position after 1st lap 1st corner.

Don’t expect much for overtaking at the end phase as everybody in the fuel/tyre/engine saving mode. Last thing a driver can do is to force the rival in front to a mistake n take over the position.

Bring back refuelling..