Fuel Rigs: Is this number of failures acceptable?

[GTRMagic]

Stoddard bought an extra Intertechnique fuel rig from the Arrows auction... presumably to keep with his memorial Arrows transporter and A23 race cars...

There is something wrong with these systemsif they cause issues somewhere in pit lane at each race...

They are trying to be quite tricky in the design, having the air evacuation system from the tank, and the refuelling hose from the fuel tank in one connection....

They should experiment with the double siamesed head, so there isnt such a critical requirement for the seating of the refilling head on the hose to the head on the car...

[slicktoast]

Refueling won't go away. It is the time that all the cars are stationary for 6 to 9 seconds of SPONSOR AIR TIME 2 to 3 times during the "race". You don't have to be in the "leading" bunch to get the air time either.
The rigs shouldn't be a factor in the "race" outcome though and with these failures, it's costing the teams points and money. You'd think you'd hear more about it than you do the Dennis & Stoddart show though.

[f1manoz]

I guess failures are bound to happen. Nothing is foolproof.

[avsfan733]

nothing is foolproof, but a failure rate of 10% or more is simply unacceptable when you have had 7 years with an exclusive contract and a unchanged set of regulations. Even more so when you are the only game in town, you have a responsiility to not make yourself a factor in the race much like bridgestone did when they were the only tire maker

[Lee Janotta]

Originally posted by dretceterini
When I said refuling has always been a part of F1, it goes back to the turn of the centrury. Yes, there have been periods of time it didn't exist.

Well, prior to 1950, there was no Formula 1. And how much refuelling was there in the 1920s and 30s, when it had really evolved into something resembling what we see today, rather than city-to-city endurance races or the like? It was sometimes seen as part of a strategy, but was by no means mandated like it is today.

[EERO]

Originally posted by Hammerwerfer
I feel that refueling is a bit silly in wht is essentially a sprint race. An F1 car should be able to go the distance on one tankful. If they could do it with the turbo cars, they can certainly do it now.

The whole spectacle is contrived now. Refueling has its proper place in endurance racing, not formula cars and certainly not F1!

Well said. I much prefferred the MANY years I watched F1 and there was no refueling. I believe it was Arrows who built the first f1 without a fuel capacity that would enable them to race without refueling. Was it circa 1995 or 1996? Anyone recall?


And really, dretceterini ,you are way off base. The early Grand Prix to which you refer were not the short sprint races of today, but great 4-6 hour marathons. Since the creation of the Modern F1 in 1950, as pointed out so clearly by lee janotta, F1 simply HAS not been the tradition.

[TeddyG]

Perhaps some competition would make for better fuel rigs...let's kick out Intertechnique altogether and get Shell and Esso to produce independent fuel rigs along with their own types of racing fuel to add even more chess games to F1!

Obviously I'm joking...but can you imagine the idea of even MORE variables in F1???

I can here the commentary now;

Brundle: Well the Michelins seem to be working well for the McLarens

Allen: Yes but Shell's extraordinary fuel flow rate of 12 litres per second should make up some time for Ferrari in the pits

Brundle: That's true James but how about Esso's new 007 type X fuel's incredible burnoff rate? Surely that will give the edge back to McLaren as they will be able to stay out at least 10 extra laps.

Allen: Ohhhh yes my word it's all so exciting isn't it folks!!!



I say no more refueling and no more electronics/driver aids...then we'd have some racing!

[Hugh Jarce]

Or we make it loads more fun with the drivers having to leap out of the car, get to the pump and fill up themselves, finally paying an old dear at a desk with a VISA card - just like I have to!

Just imagine the scrap when the BAR card failed to swipe!

But seriously, I think no fuelling would now be my choice. Having said that, a few years ago I would have said differently. How fickle can I be!

[Sodemo]

What would happen in theory if a car actually drove away while the fuel hose was fully attached to the car?

[Kex]

Hopefully the bloke on the 'dead-man's handle' would do his job....

[BootsOntheSide]

The fuel hose would probably spit under Monster's situation, causing fuel to leak out, and if any gets into the engine, we've got a repeat of Hockenheim 1994 on our hands, potentially catastrophic stuff.

A few failures in the early days of standard equipment was acceptable, but it's got a bit beyond that now. Removing refuelling is fine by me.

[jase]

Originally posted by Kex
Hopefully the bloke on the 'dead-man's handle' would do his job....

On the F1 system there is no "Dead Man's Handle" the job is peformed by the ring handle the refueller holds

[Smokey 6 litre]

the problem is competiton, interdoodah or whatever they're called have a monopololy on the teams, so if the FIA allow another producer to enter the market then standards should rise, BUT, increased competition would lead to increased risks as producers strive for speed.
Wither that or ban pitstops.
its your choice (actually it isn't, its the FIAs)

[Dutton]

Prior to this year, the rigs had the odd problem, but was acceptable enough. This year has been poor, no doubt about it. However, DC's problem was no strictly a rig problem - he was just released before the rig was fully out of the slot, for it had been dc-ed (excuse the pun). If it hadn't, then it wouldn't have come out when David moved...

If you ban refuelling over-taking is not suddenly just going to start happening in my view, since the drivers will pass the guy in front if they can regardless (which has happened a fair bit this year if you are honest about it)... Change the circuits and cars, then refuelling might be able to get shown the door.