How much better will the racing be in 2009?

[Marbot]

DC has serious doubts that the new rules will have much effect on racing next season and has instead come up with the rather radical,outlandish and novel idea of 'BANNING REFUELLING!' errerrm...sorry about that.

DC says:

"Pre-1994 you used to get that by having full fuel tanks and no mid-race refuelling.

In the turbo days, if a car was more efficient it didn’t have to carry as much fuel, so you could have one car starting the race which might be slower over a single lap but had 10kg less fuel. Tyre management was a big factor then too, as you could choose to run non-stop or pit multiple times for new rubber.

It’s ironic that refuelling was introduced to spice up the spectacle, yet it has probably had the opposite effect.

There’s no question in my mind that banning refuelling would create more lap time variation and improve the racing."

full article.

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=David_Coulthard

[Sodemo]

It depends on what the finished article is when all the cars regs have been designed.

As far as I know, the current slick tyres move is only taking place subject to the FIA's approval of the TWG's publication and teams agreeing on their proposals for a cut in downforce.

If this is not achieved, then no slick tyres in 2009 and consequently, - no downforce change either.

However if all does go ahead, then i'm optimistic. A move to mechanical rather than aero grip has to be a good move, making the tyres do the work rather than "the car" itself. It *should* also maybe close up the field a bit, as limiting aero means that the grip will come from the tyres, - which will be the same for all teams, therefore, all teams will have the same grip from the tyres. Thats rather simplified granted, but it may or may not help in the long term.

I just want to see wider rear tyres, the ones they have now aren't awful, but they don't even look as wide as the ones they used in 1997 and before.

The 1992 slicks would be a good size to use. I'm not too sure about going back to the monstrous 70's ones, cool though they are...

[Wrex]

Personally I’m sceptical it will have a big effect, because there will always be quicker cars that qualify at the front and slower cars that qualify at the back – and why would the slower car be able to pass the quicker car just because it’s less upset by turbulence? It just won’t happen.

Agree 100%

I would suggest a bigger influence on the ability to overtake is having enough lap time variation among different cars over the course of a race.

Again, agree 100%

When people remember the good old days (which were never as good as they remember), cars had variations in lap speed over the race distance, and most of the time 30-50% of the field DNF.

Thats what made racing unpredictable.

These days cars have extremely high reliability and now after the first laps, the result is usually a foregone conclusion. After the last pit stop, you can pack up and go home and be 98% sure of the result.

I like the idea of no refueling for a few reasons.

Firstly, any reduction in pitstops means drivers need to take that chance and make a move, rather than taking the safe option and waiting for the stops.

Secondly, it will provide some variations in lap times over the race. Exciting races dont even need passing, just the unpredictability of the result. Imagine Hamilton 20 seconds ahead of Kimi, losing 2 seconds a lap, with 15 to go. The order may not change, but we will sure be watching the end of the race to see what happens.

Finally, I am also one of those that thinks we should unrestrict engines, and just give decreasing levels of fuel each year.

"Here is your 120Ltrs for the race, make it work."

With little to spend on Aero, the car makes can go back to making engines, and Fuel efficient road relevant ones at that.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Wrex

"Here is your 120Ltrs for the race, make it work."

This works in MotoGP,so why not in F1.

Also,DC does not seem to have any qualms about racing with full race distance fuel onboard.I'm sure that he'd be the first one to squeal if it was thought to be unsafe.

[JeremySmith]

Safer than re-fueling by far I think...

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Safer than re-fueling by far I think...

Probably more than anything else I would like to see the back of refuelling..................oh,and James Allen.......and adverts........and those packets of biscuits that don't have those 'open here' tags on.

[S.Moss]

A ban on refueling has been needed for years, such as getting slick tyres back, wider cars and rid of all the little winglets they have. If they ban refueling, they will be forced to overtake on the track, not in the pits..

As for limiting fuel i don't think that would be a good idea, look at the Group C cars, they had restricted fuel limits (but also open engine capacity) and ended up doing 200+ easy and that was 20 years ago.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by S.Moss

As for limiting fuel i don't think that would be a good idea, look at the Group C cars, they had restricted fuel limits (but also open engine capacity) and ended up doing 200+ easy and that was 20 years ago.

So you restrict the fuel amount even more!

In MotoGP the engines have to be 'mapped' so that they can make it to the end of the race on one tankfull.None of the engines are running at full potential simply because they would run out of fuel before the end of the race.

Making engines more economical and drive-able is already a part of F1 anyway,so why not make it more so?

[Marbot]

An interesting article about the upcoming new regs.....no mention of refuelling being banned however.

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?T...ughes&id=42353

[RaiseYourFist]

I dont think it will help that much, the fastest car will run away with it like it is now, hopefully the midfield battle will be more interesting but the KERS system sounds very "gimicky" also.

[TRuss]

I think KERS could be handled better too. Currently it reminds me too much of Champ Cars push to pass. Which was just too arcade like for me to take seriously.

[Sodemo]

I also doubt the significance of 80BHP as a push to pass element. In 2001 the BMW engine was estimated to have about 60BHP more than any other engine on the grid, yet that car didn't pass every other car on the track.

[Daniel Pinnegar]

O my goodness, do not get me started on champ car!! I was watching one of the races in America and the commentator said

"O no thats not right...he blocked him!!"

I was like, "yeah, crikey, that would make this almost worth watching" HAHA

Anyway, I think the no refueling mid race would actually be a good thing, because of what someone else said earlier about having to overtake on the track and not the pit stops.

[Oldtony]

I think the significance of KERS is probably being underestimated by many people.
Theoretically it will not only give a push to pass effect, but in the course of a non traffic lap it will give a significant boost to acceleration out of slower corners and/or a significant saving in fuel use. A whole new range of tactical and strategic possibilities will open up. The energy is there to be used each lap, storing it for longer is wasting it. The banning of refueling could make the use of KERS even more interesting in that it would predicate use of the recycled energy to save fuel as well as increase performance, a much more sensible use of the potential for development.
The aero and tyre changes are probably more predictable and will be much further developed and understood by teams.
The result in terms of racing are at this stage unpredictable, but, based on past major changes in regs, it will probably lead to one team doing a better job and dominating the early part of the season. Which team??????
KERS is almost strangled at birth by the FIA regs. but at least re-introduces some technical interest into what is becoming a fairly dumb formula.

[johntt]

I like the sound of the aero/slicks however i'm not 100% on board with the KERS. I hate push-to-pass, takes the skill out of racing. (i also don't like the idea of active aero, it takes the skill out of setting up the car for the track). I would only allow KERS as a way of saving fuel.

[RaiseYourFist]

I wouldnt mind KERS though, if it was a small constant boost throughout the entire race.

[Graz]

Re-fuelling should be banned - a driver should have the skill to set a car up to work on heavy fuel, lightening fuel and light fuel while at the same time looking after his tyres. This adds another variable to spice up the racing.

Re aero, why are the teams so reluctant to reduce it? One reason I heard was the loss of sponsorship space but that doesn't wash if you look at the wings on cars since 70's, these were plenty big.

Some points were made above about slower cars will still be slower cars regardless of the reduction in turbulance but is it not more the case that quicker cars that may have been delayed can't get by the slower cars because of the turbulance? Indycars have always been able to run nose to tail around ovals because of their underfloor aero so why couldn't F1 cars employ similar devices (and I don't mean the skirts of late 70's/early 80's).

The bottom line is that I would imagine most people want to see close racing and overtaking done on the track.

[Super Hans]

Personally I’m sceptical it will have a big effect, because there will always be quicker cars that qualify at the front and slower cars that qualify at the back – and why would the slower car be able to pass the quicker car just because it’s less upset by turbulence? It just won’t happen.

The problem is that when a faster car is travelling behind a slower car, it is incredibly difficult for them to get close, let alone pass.

[JeremySmith]

I dont wish to see any kind of "push to pass" in F1...Crap idea, leave it to American open wheel..

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

I dont wish to see any kind of "push to pass" in F1...Crap idea, leave it to American open wheel..

You're not going to like this then are you.

80 bhp for a maximum of six seconds per lap and the button has got to be driver controlled...oh joy!

Well it could help a slower car pass a quicker car,but only if somehow the slower car managed to keep up with the quicker car in the first place.

If refuelling were banned and Bridgestone actually turned up to a race with an option tyre that made a bloody difference,then at least the slower cars could have a chance of using those to trouble the 'quicker' cars in front of them. *Thinks back to when Damon Hill put his 'Arrows' among the mighty*

[Oldtony]

There seems to be a bit of a "push to pass" fixation here. This is not like the CCWS system which has a certain duration of the extra power allocated for the race. It is an entirely different concept.
The KERS system will recover and store a defined amount of energy (power) each lap, and that energy must be used on that lap. You can't store it up to use to pass someone, so it's main ue will be in acceleration out of corners, or possily up a hill. Certainly it has the potential to be used to pass, but that would have to happen on the lap in which the energy is recovered.
Another potential use is in saving fuel to extend run time between stops, although everyone will have the same potential.
It's more push to accelerate than push to pass.

[Sodemo]

No one is going to be "shooting past" anyone. 80BHP is not a "push to pass" at all, its no where near enough horsepower to simply slingshot past someone.

[Pingguest]

Refuelling should be banned indeed. As long as refuelling stays drivers are not to overtaking each other, as doing a pit stop takes less risks normally.

But with refuelling banned, the lack of close racing won't be resolved. We still need to get rid of the current aero madness. The front wing and high noses should be banned as soon as possible. Maybe we should even remove the diffuser and rear wing.

I remember reading Jacky Stewart's biography stating that every Italian Grand Prix had 60 to 70 lead changes, because drivers could still slipstream. That's all gone now. Nowadays we sould be happy to see one on-track lead change per season!

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

I dont wish to see any kind of "push to pass" in F1...Crap idea, leave it to American open wheel..

I'm not against the re-use of energy that would be wasted otherwise, but I don't like the new technology to be heavily regulated from the very beginning.

[Sodemo]

Ferrari are saying that the KERS is going to be massively expensive to produce and that basically they aren't all that chuffed with it.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/66781