FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[McLaren Fan]

From Planet F1:

Sunday 10th August 2008

David Coulthard believes a ban on refuelling will make Formula One a lot more interesting.

Coulthard's call for the change comes following a spate of refuelling fires during the Hungarian Grand Prix.

Toyota, Toro Rosso, Williams and Honda were all hit with fires at the Hungaroring, and the general consensus was that the high temperatures were to blame.

The Red Bull driver, though, thinks no refuelling during races will spice Formula One up.

"The spate of fuel fires in Hungary were all extinguished quickly and no one was hurt, but they did serve to remind us how potentially volatile pit stops are," he wrote in his ITV column.

"From my point of view a bigger drawback of refuelling is that it detracts from the racing by turning the grand prix into a series of low-fuel sprints between pit stops.

"In the days (pre-1994) when you carried your entire race fuel load on board the car, there was a much bigger role for the driver in managing the tyres and brakes.

"These days, in dry conditions, you very rarely see anyone win from further back than the second row of the grid, because race pace largely mirrors qualifying pace - which is not surprising when the conditions are so similar.

"So if we need to spice up the racing, in my view one of the best ways of doing that would be to ban refuelling.

"It could also chime in nicely with the desire for F1 to pursue a "green" agenda, in that the FIA could give every team a fixed and publicly known amount of fuel for the race distance and they would have a clear incentive to be as fuel-efficient as possible."

If you take away Coulthard's paranoia about the dangers of refueling in Formula 1, his suggestion is worthy of consideration.

[7UpJordan]

From Planet F1:

Sunday 10th August 2008

David Coulthard believes a ban on refuelling will make Formula One a lot more interesting.

Coulthard's call for the change comes following a spate of refuelling fires during the Hungarian Grand Prix.

Toyota, Toro Rosso, Williams and Honda were all hit with fires at the Hungaroring, and the general consensus was that the high temperatures were to blame.

The Red Bull driver, though, thinks no refuelling during races will spice Formula One up.

"The spate of fuel fires in Hungary were all extinguished quickly and no one was hurt, but they did serve to remind us how potentially volatile pit stops are," he wrote in his ITV column.

"From my point of view a bigger drawback of refuelling is that it detracts from the racing by turning the grand prix into a series of low-fuel sprints between pit stops.

"In the days (pre-1994) when you carried your entire race fuel load on board the car, there was a much bigger role for the driver in managing the tyres and brakes.

"These days, in dry conditions, you very rarely see anyone win from further back than the second row of the grid, because race pace largely mirrors qualifying pace - which is not surprising when the conditions are so similar.

"So if we need to spice up the racing, in my view one of the best ways of doing that would be to ban refuelling.

"It could also chime in nicely with the desire for F1 to pursue a "green" agenda, in that the FIA could give every team a fixed and publicly known amount of fuel for the race distance and they would have a clear incentive to be as fuel-efficient as possible."

If you take away Coulthard's paranoia about the dangers of refueling in Formula 1, his suggestion is worthy of consideration.

A refueling ban would be a great idea. I liked the idea of when drivers had to carefully decide when to push and when to ease off to save fuel, this was made even more critical in the turbo era where the boost pressure would also dictate the amount of fuel consumed. Easing off on occasions during the race and driving conservatively to ensure nobody runs out of fuel in the dying laps would also set a good example for the "green" picture the FIA wants to paint.

[Rivelution]

I like that. I've always hated hearing 'who is lighter than who' so this would be a pretty good idea.

[Kiwi_Chris]

Could be a good idea, the only thing i would be worried about is that with the increase in fuel tank size and the amount of fuel they would have to carry would there be a higher amount of fuel vapour in the tank in the latter parts of the race , and therefore a increased risk of explosion if the tank is ruptured in a crash.
I could be way off the mark but that would be one safety downside to that, i know the tanks are strong but everything has a limit

[al4x]

i was thinking about this, might everybody just not push for an overtke, cause it wouldnt be worth the effort, overtaking takes alot out, and with it being so difficult now, if you fail, youve lost you tyres compared to the guy in front, and your more vuneralble to the guys behind, for the rest of the race

also, agin, seeing as overtaking is so hard, with this everybody would be the same weight, so even less ovrtaking again?

just throwing it out there,

safety i dont really see a problem either way there

[7UpJordan]

i was thinking about this, might everybody just not push for an overtke, cause it wouldnt be worth the effort, overtaking takes alot out, and with it being so difficult now, if you fail, youve lost you tyres compared to the guy in front, and your more vuneralble to the guys behind, for the rest of the race

also, agin, seeing as overtaking is so hard, with this everybody would be the same weight, so even less ovrtaking again?

just throwing it out there,

safety i dont really see a problem either way there

Hopefully next year's regulations will decrease the difficulty of overtaking. But everybody would race differently with a full tank of fuel, some drivers may be forced into driving more conservatively to save fuel at different stages of the race whilst others coming right up behind them will be on the limit. Then there's the teams running the KERS device, they could use that to try and overtake.

[IceManpjn]

At first I had mixed feelings about the whole refueling ban idea, mainly in that I didn't want to lose the strategy of managing those refueling stops, but we'd be trading that in for managing fuel consumption, so we're trading one strategy for another perhaps more interesting one. So, I've changed my mind and I guess I'm onboard this no-refueling train. I like it.

[madbrad]

For those of us who were watching pre 1994, I remember enjoying the lack of refuelling. I mean, I enjoyed the races. The stops were just for tires. Ironically they banned tire changes in 200X? LOL. That sucked!
The tanks had a maximum allowable size of 200 litres. Since long before that, the tanks have been collapsible bladders with multiple pickups and baffles to prevent starving the pumps. No vapors can remain since the interior volume shrinks along with the fuel.
There has neve been a fuel tank rupture causing a fire ever since they have had the bladders. In refuelling's firs year, Verstappen's car was the centre of a huge refuelling fireball. Steve Matchett was the rear jack man in that fire. He was a strong opponent of the implementation of refuelling. prior to the season's commencement.

[bud]

i dont think that it would be fair to ban refuelling with the current freeze on the engines.

[8-ball]

i have only ever known an F1 where they stop for fuel so I was surprised to learn that is wasn't always the case. I'm for whatever increases overtaking opportunities so if it means banning refueling so drivers overtake on the track rather than in the pits then i'm all for it

[Martin]

I would have not agreed initially, but DC is the wise old man of F1 and I respect his experience. I have always felt that pit stops are an essential element in F1 racing, as it adds an important strategic dimension to the race. However, if refueling is scrapped, but pit stops remain for tyres, then that could be good. I do think though that it will reduce overtaking in the early laps, because hard braking/ cornering during overtaking will place high loads on the tyres when the car is heavy.
However, as an addition to this, maybe a limit on the amount of fuel used for the race will reduce engine costs (engines that use less fuel would probably cost less to build?).
Maybe even maximum fuel usage for the whole weekend! That would also mean lower costs because the car would be driven less. There is a limit to the number of tyres, so why not a limit on fuel? This would fit into the no refueling idea quite well I think.
No refueling would certainly increase safety, not that there has been a serious fire incident (people killed or injured) for a long time, but it would also eliminate the race position losses caused by fuel rig failure, which is, surprisingly, a very common incident.

[headless]

I think they should keep refuelling it gives the race abit of spice, especially when safety cars are out.
But a ban would be interesting...

[Denthúl]

I'm starting to think it would be a good idea, and lots of people seem to agree, however a large number of them are also asking for another tyre-change ban, which I think would not work at all with a fuel-ban because of the amount that cars would have to carry.

[McLaren Fan]

I'm starting to think it would be a good idea, and lots of people seem to agree, however a large number of them are also asking for another tyre-change ban, which I think would not work at all with a fuel-ban because of the amount that cars would have to carry.

Are they asking for both a tyre change ban and a refueling ban? Formula 1 must have pit stops in some form, either for tyres, fuel, or both.

[f1maniac95]

I think a ban or refueling would be an excellent idea especially with the tyre management because people would start to have very worn tires from carrying all their fuel.