View Single Post
Old 13 May 2022, 17:11 (Ref:4109837)   #82
BTCC frog
Veteran
 
BTCC frog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,082
BTCC frog is going for a new world record!BTCC frog is going for a new world record!BTCC frog is going for a new world record!BTCC frog is going for a new world record!BTCC frog is going for a new world record!BTCC frog is going for a new world record!
I think it is difficult to really know what refuelling would be like today, given that the tyres were better then than they are now. At the time, refuelling played a big part in the sport and the tyres were less relevant, while now the tyres are the central part of the sport and refuelling obviously doesn’t play a part at all. I suspect if refuelling was brought back, the teams would just base their strategy around the refuelling and the drivers would just have to adjust their tyre-saving to that, so if it were reintroduced it would be a similar story to before. So I have simply compared F1 which is ‘all about the tyres’ with F1 which is ‘all about the fuel.’

Firstly, I believe the strategies are more exciting when it is about tyres. With fuel, the key thing that is used is the overcut, because the driver who has just pitted is slower than the driver about to pit. With tyres it is the undercut, as the driver who has just pitted has new tyres and is faster. And as drivers only have a set amount of fuel in the car at any one time, that means they are effectively forced into pitting on the lap they are (or earlier, which is slower), whereas with tyres an early pitstop can be made out of choice. This means that strategy is far more likely to be changed at short notice with tyres as the main thing instead of fuel, so I prefer this. Another thing is that a driver on maximum attack would wear out their tyres a lot more quickly than a driver driving conservatively so would pit much earlier, but probably would only use enough fuel for a handful fewer laps. This also means that strategy can change more during the race, which I like. I think with tyres, strategy is far more likely to have to be made up on the spot than with refuelling, which I think is more exciting and forces teams to be more reactive.

Also, I think it is more likely that there will still be question marks over who is going to win at the end of a race without refuelling. At the end of a race, every driver will have approximately the same amount of fuel, whereas their tyres can be in very varied condition. So I think the chance of late drama is more with tyre F1 than with fuel F1. And teams have more understanding of their opponents’ strategies, as they would generally know approximately what lap the pitstop would happen based on how long the refuelling rig was in (something that you cannot really stop them knowing), with the exception being when there was a problem. And as computers become more advanced, this would be even more accurate than it had been before. So I don’t think this is the case. With tyres, on the other hand, drivers can eke out a strategy far longer than a rival team was expecting. And sometimes the track conditions are just different to what was expected, with doesn’t apply to refuelling.

And I also just generally think that the individual races in the 10s were more exciting than in the 00s. So there is my reasoning for thinking F1 is better off without refuelling. But it seems from most fan surveys that the majority disagree with me.

However, I think the differing strategies are one of the most exciting parts of F1, watching a number of different teams go for different things and then the drivers having to make their team's strategy work (which would be much better without DRS as the driver defending would have more of a role to play), and so I would be disappointed if most races became no-stop races, with just a few drivers trying one-stops.
BTCC frog is offline  
__________________
Ten-tenths Predictions Contest World Champion of 2022
Quote