To Fuel or Not to Fuel - That is the Question

[Mekola]

But teams could put bigger fuel tanks on the cars to solve this.

[duke_toaster]

Which would be dangerous in the event of the crash. Therefore refuelling should be kept.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Mekola

But teams could put bigger fuel tanks on the cars to solve this.

I doubt they have enough space for a 200 litres sized fuel tank.

[Super Hans]

If anything, today's freak incidents showed that refuelling in F1 is safer than ever.

All fires were extinguished in double-quick time, with nobody receiving injury.

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

If anything, today's freak incidents showed that refuelling in F1 is safer than ever.

All fires were extinguished in double-quick time, with nobody receiving injury.

Totally agree.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

Which would be dangerous in the event of the crash. Therefore refuelling should be kept.

When was the last time we saw a fuel tank split or catch fire in an accident? A bigger fuel tank is safer than re-fuelling.

[Graz]

There should be no fuel stops. Races should be won on the track. It's an art form in itself to set up a car that's good on heavy fuel at the start, gradually lightening through the race and light at the end. Drivers would have to think more about looking after tyres and such like instead of the three flat out sprints that exist now. It would improve the racing imo.

[Bleu]

Originally Posted by Mr V

When was the last time we saw a fuel tank split or catch fire in an accident? A bigger fuel tank is safer than re-fuelling.

During last ten years I can recall two accidents with small fires. Bernoldi in 2002 and Schumacher in 2004, both at Interlagos.

[BootsOntheSide]

Serious investigation is needed into the problems we saw today. Three pit fires, no matter how minor, is an extraordinary situation - I doubt we've had that many in a decade. The heat might've been a factor, but was that the hottest race since 1994, or will we never have a race as hot again.

I don't really have a problem with fuel stops - they were introduced as a tactical innovation and a way to improve results, banned because they weren't safe in 1984, reintroduced when they became safe (safer than a car crashing on 200 miles worth of fuel, anyway), and I'm not sure they've resulted in inferior races. My memory of the late 80s and early 90s is of processional races in a sport dominated by a single team. We've definitely had more overtakes for points positions this year than in any of those seasons. At least now the cars are in different orders at different stages of the race.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Bleu

During last ten years I can recall two accidents with small fires. Bernoldi in 2002 and Schumacher in 2004, both at Interlagos.

2 fires in 10 years as opposed to 3 pit fires today alone

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by Mr V

2 fires in 10 years as opposed to 3 pit fires today alone

And no serious consequences following either, but if there is a fire I'd rather see it in the pits with extuingishers ready than on a crashed car, with possibly an injured driver who can't get out.

@Graz:

It's an art form in itself to set up a car that's good on heavy fuel at the start, gradually lightening through the race and light at the end.

You mean like setting up a car that's good on heavy fuel at the start, gradually lightening through a stint and light before pitting for fuel and starting all over?

[Marbot]

Even Coulthard thinks that refuelling is unnecessary-"There’s no question in my mind that banning refuelling would create more lap time variation and improve the racing." As do a great many of the technical people in F1.Fuel cells are pretty tough things these days.A lot tougher than a dozen mechanics standing around a potential inferno.

It's not the amount of fuel that matters,it's where that fuel ends up that causes the problems.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69675

Full DC article.

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?T...thard&id=42344

[Graz]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

@Graz:

You mean like setting up a car that's good on heavy fuel at the start, gradually lightening through a stint and light before pitting for fuel and starting all over?

No, that's not the same thing at all - these days cars have small tanks, only large enough for part race distance. A current GP car could not do a full race distance without having to be refuelled. I mean cars should be filled for the entire race which is a different thing entirely which means going back to full size tanks which means a much heavier car at the start of the race compared to now. This is how it was before refuelling was reintroduced.

[foreversideways]

Full tank of fuel, set of slicks, no flappy paddles or fly by wire throttles, no paddles for engine maps etc. Just the driver on his own in his car for the whole race. It used to be called Grand Prix Racing.

[johntt]

I'd leave the decision up to the teams.

Some may go down the route of a small engine and a big fuel tank which can go the distance, others may go for a bigger engine with a small fuel tank that needs to stop.

Pitch both ideas against each other and see what comes out on top.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Mr V

2 fires in 10 years as opposed to 3 pit fires today alone

Yeah, and isn't the driver supposed to take the biggest risk instead of his mechanics and a few other men in the pits?

[S.Moss]

Many seem to want fuelling to be banned mainly to make sure overtaking is done on the track. I agree with this but also agree it should be banned on a safety aspect. Sure there have been few fires in the pits but how many times have we seen drivers taking fuel hoses down the pits with them, injuring fuel men cause they couldn't get it unattached from the car quick enough... The less people involved in a pit stop better, which is why i also like A1GP where mechanics can't go out till car has fully stopped in its pitbox.

[dtype38]

Seems to be a lot of objections to refuelling, so I'm gonna pitch in with some support for it....

Perhaps some of you aren't old enough to remember the days of F1 racing at the Hungaroring without refuelling. There were only two ways to improve on your quallifying position... 1. Get a great start. 2. Hope someone in front of you broke down. That was it. A procession. It didn't really matter if your car was set up to work best late in the race or at the beginning. You could have a car 3s a lap faster and it would make no difference.

At lest the refuelling stop allows a faster car to get past.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by dtype38

At lest the refuelling stop allows a faster car to get past.

Do we really want the faster cars to get passed in the pits? Wouldn't we prefer (with the help of some decent regulations) the faster cars to have to get passed the slower cars on the track?

And get rid of those blue flags!

[Born Racer]

From the point of view of a more straightforward race done on the track and not in the pits, you'd have to get rid of tyre changes too to eliminate pitstop strategy as an integral element of every Grand Prix. Some way of having an incentive not to stop would help.

I thought the season without tyre changes worked very well. You had some cars performing much better at the end of the race, and others working the tyres harder at the start. Who knows if things would have normalised after a while when the teams got a handle on things, but it would've been nice to have had the chance to see. I recall the official explanation for re-instating tyre stops being to remove a dangerous situation, but I fail to see how it was dangerous (in the grand scheme of motorsport).

[kartingdad]

I think the pit stops are a pain to be frank.

What i can't quite get my head around is that xxxdriver is doing a fantastic in/out lap to gain time.

Why isn't he doing a fantastic lap every lap? Is it the money? Perhaps they should be paid more.

They should be at 100% every damn lap rather than cruising round waiting for an opportunity for a bit of a blast. If they were all giving it that 100% all the time then the pit stops would have little bearing on the result as the pit lane entry/exit speeds are regulated. A further aid to negating the pit stop lottery would be to have a minimum pit stop time limit - eg all cars have to stop for 10 seconds.

Just my 2 pence worth.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

I recall the official explanation for re-instating tyre stops being to remove a dangerous situation, but I fail to see how it was dangerous (in the grand scheme of motorsport).

The "dangerous situation" was Ferrari having yet another relatively dismal season in 2006.

I too thought that the 2005 season would have been even better if they'd have also banned refuelling.The current strategy of using your pit stop to leap-frog your opponent doesn't make for exciting racing.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by dtype38

Perhaps some of you aren't old enough to remember the days of F1 racing at the Hungaroring without refuelling. There were only two ways to improve on your quallifying position... 1. Get a great start. 2. Hope someone in front of you broke down. That was it. A procession. It didn't really matter if your car was set up to work best late in the race or at the beginning. You could have a car 3s a lap faster and it would make no difference.

I remember soms great passings on the Hungaroring before refuelling was reintroduced. A couple of weeks ago I watched the 1986 Hungarian GP with Piquet winning by passing Senna twice. I also remember Prost to do a real come-back race in 1988 and a fantastic overtaking pass by Mansell in the 1990 Hungarian Grand Prix.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

From the point of view of a more straightforward race done on the track and not in the pits, you'd have to get rid of tyre changes too to eliminate pitstop strategy as an integral element of every Grand Prix. Some way of having an incentive not to stop would help.

With a decent set of rules (lower speed limit, a limited number of wheel changers, wide slicks, a tyre war, a ban on tyre warmers and refuelling) would we really need to have an unpratical ban on tyre changes to get races without pitstops?

[dtype38]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I remember soms great passings on the Hungaroring before refuelling was reintroduced. A couple of weeks ago I watched the 1986 Hungarian GP with Piquet winning by passing Senna twice. I also remember Prost to do a real come-back race in 1988 and a fantastic overtaking pass by Mansell in the 1990 Hungarian Grand Prix.

I stand corrected. Ok they weren't all dismal, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers looking forward to that particular date on the F1 calendar and wondering if it was worth staying in to watch.

Fact remains though that if you want to see "on-track" overtaking in top class motorsport, go watch MotoGP. Why? Because in bike racing, following another competitor is an advantage (from the hole in the air he's making) rather than a disadvantage (cos he's messing with your aerodynamics). Until F1 learns that fact, then artificial opportunities like pit stops at least adds to the show. But who's going to go tell an F1 team that their new multi-gazillion pound windtunnel and equally expensive aerodynamic crunching supercomputer are going to be made redundant?