It's been a few years, and I'm still happy that RE-FUELING is gone.

[gloomyDAY]

Re-fueling is inherently dangerous. I always cringed when a driver gunned it prior to the fuel hose being disengaged. The teams obviously kept searching for ways to make a pit stop faster, so eventually - at least I thought - there would be a fiery incident and a driver and/or crew members would be severely burned.

Also, I hated when the only time we saw a car pass another car was in the pits. That always made me roll my eyes during the 2008 season. I think the racing is better now that the drivers have to contend with a very heavy car at the beginning of the race, nurse a car if running low on fuel, and be able to keep a fast pace on low fuel towards the end of the race.

I feel as if F1 is more safe and more fun since re-fueling was axed. What say ye?

[EuroTroll]

I agree completely.

Added to that, I'm very happy that qualifying is run on low fuel nowadays. It is proper qualifying again.

The FIA are wise and benevolent. :p

[Big Ben]

I guess it's better with no refueling. They only need to allow that drs be used at any time or not at all and I'd be pretty satisfied.

[Mark]

Yes, I have to agree, that I don't miss it at all. There's enough strategy going on with tyre stops to keep the interest up. I guess we are lucky all those years with refuelling that nobody was killed.

[F1boat]

I liked the magic with Ross and Michael did in the years with refueling, but with tons of overtaking thanks to the DRS and Pirelli, now F1 is more fun, I have to admit.

[AndyL]

Yes I don't miss refuelling. In addition to the benefits already mentioned, I like that the teams have the challenge of setting the car up to run with the full range of weight conditions from 150kg of fuel to empty.

[wedge]

Gone are the days of pit/fuel strategy of hanging back, save fuel, bang out some banzai laps, pray for a quick and efficient, bang out a few more laps and find that you've passed the car in front.

Stringing together quali style laps and being on the limit was an amazing and appreciative piece of skill but more akin to TTs. Its not what F1 racing is about.

It's down to the drivers now to pass on the track.

[Knock-on]

While I don't like refuelling, I'm against regulations so think the teams should be allowed to use it if they want.

I think you should give teams a box that the car must fit inside, tyres for the weekend and an amount of fuel for the race and let them get on with it.

[inimitablestoo]

I liked refuelling at the time, but I can't argue with the arguments above about the races being better now. Besides, it's not as if it's a 24-hour race, or even a four-hour enduro, where refuelling would be a requirement.

But at the same time, Knockie's spot on about the regulations. Bring back the option of differing numbers of cylinders at the very least...

[airshifter]

At the time it was first banned, I thought I would miss watching all the different pit strategies play out. But since it's actually started, I like the issues it creates with car setups more. Not to mention that now the tire stops are just fast to the point of insane at times!

[SGWilko]

I liked refuelling at the time, but I can't argue with the arguments above about the races being better now. Besides, it's not as if it's a 24-hour race, or even a four-hour enduro, where refuelling would be a requirement.

But at the same time, Knockie's spot on about the regulations. Bring back the option of differing numbers of cylinders at the very least...

Indeed - being issued with a set amount of fuel per race, will even things out anyway. The emphasis will be on driveability and economy coupled with longevity. I'd quite like to see how the Williams CVT would have aided fuel efficiency, as that allowed the engine to run at its peak rev band and the transmission did the rest.

[wedge]

Indeed - being issued with a set amount of fuel per race, will even things out anyway. The emphasis will be on driveability and economy coupled with longevity.

Most likely it would end up like Indycar and NASCAR where there is a lot of emphasis on saving fuel and economising fuel because of the mandated size of the fuel tank. That style of racing isn't racing if you had to put up with it week in week out.

[Dave B]

I think you should give teams a box that the car must fit inside, tyres for the weekend and an amount of fuel for the race and let them get on with it.
I've been banging on about this for years to anybody who will listen. Often to people who didn't really want to listen but nodded along politely anyway. The only thing I'd add is that the amount of fuel should decrease season by season, and it should be up to the teams to supplement this with whatever recovery systems or alternative power they see fit.

[Dave B]

Most likely it would end up like Indycar and NASCAR where there is a lot of emphasis on saving fuel and economising fuel because of the mandated size of the fuel tank. That style of racing isn't racing if you had to put up with it week in week out.
Not if you freed up the regulations to allow energy recovery systems, solar power, or whatever else some of the world's best engineers can produce.

[schmenke]

I've been banging on about this for years to anybody who will listen. Often to people who didn't really want to listen but nodded along politely anyway. The only thing I'd add is that the amount of fuel should decrease season by season, and it should be up to the teams to supplement this with whatever recovery systems or alternative power they see fit.

I'd support that concept :up:

[F1boat]

Most likely it would end up like Indycar and NASCAR where there is a lot of emphasis on saving fuel and economising fuel because of the mandated size of the fuel tank. That style of racing isn't racing if you had to put up with it week in week out.

Well, in many series fuel economy is important, IndyCar, Stock Car, Endurance... now F1. It's normal. Maybe only the BTCC is about flat out racing... even there you must nurture your tyres.

[jens]

I think refueling era had its own charm. It was a different spectacle and definetely for people, who like to enjoy flat-out driving - sprints between pitstops.

Whether refueling would be a good addition or not, depends on the regulations. IMO in 2010 refueling was a bit missed, because due to those hard Bridgestones little was going on in the races and refueling strategies could have added an extra depth to races. But since the introduction of Pirellis I don't think we are missing anything - races are exciting and are also strategically interesting. Like we saw in China - 2 stops vs 3 stops.

[wedge]

Well, in many series fuel economy is important, IndyCar, Stock Car, Endurance... now F1. It's normal. Maybe only the BTCC is about flat out racing... even there you must nurture your tyres.

Of course but with regulation on the amount fuel the more likely fuel economy becomes important when an average race is 1.5 hours - 2hrs.

[steveaki13]

I always thought F1 should have been left in a similar way to Dave and Knock.

Give the teams a set box as mentioned and allow some free enterprise. Design the car how you want, give the teams a set amount of all compound tyres and use hardest or softest which ever you reckon will give you best race strategy. Allow 0 stops, 1 stop or 4 stop. Teams can choose. Allow fuel race fuel tanks and re fueling if they want, so they can use as much fuel or as little as they want.

Imagine the strategy differences you could come up with in races.

[steveaki13]

The problem with all this I said above is costs.

Not very compatible with F1's cost savings

[Garry Walker]

I think refueling era had its own charm. It was a different spectacle and definetely for people, who like to enjoy flat-out driving - sprints between pitstops.

.
Like me.
I'd rather see 1 overtake in the pits than 10 worthless DRS overtakings (like we have now) or the magical sight of drivers having to save their tyres throughout the stints and not going as fast as possible because the tyres would just die then.

[Whyzars]

Even though I agree that the safety aspects of re-fueling were an ever present danger, I have a couple of issues with the removal of refueling.

Firstly I cannot get my head around pit assisted fuel management. I see that engineers giving instructions to the driver for engine settings as a driver aid pure and simple. Since refueling has been banned in the modern era, I cannot recall a single car that has run out of fuel during the race. That statistic to me is ridiculous in the extreme and an indication of how artificial the fuel environment is.

Secondly, the idea that a car can start a race with less fuel than is required to finish is simply crazy. To me that is not racing, its an economy run. I have posted before that bonus points could be awarded for fuel remaining in a tank at the end of a race but the current practice of starting with insufficient fuel is just wrong when coupled with computer aided fuel management.

Re-fueling has dangers but those dangers can be, and need to be, managed. Penalties seem to be handed out for anything and everything these days so refueling incidents would be handled far more seriously. Obviously they weren't handled seriously enough in the past if the powers that be decided that the only way to make fuel stops safe was to remove them.

The decision not to use flywheel based KERS systems appeared to me to show that the environment is not driving anyone's agenda so get refueling back and start burning fuel like F1 is supposed to. Fuel weight is its own penalty. Carry as little as is needed, as often as is needed, to get the car around the track as quickly as possible.

Its motorsport for crying out loud... :)

[wedge]

Like me.
I'd rather see 1 overtake in the pits than 10 worthless DRS overtakings (like we have now) or the magical sight of drivers having to save their tyres throughout the stints and not going as fast as possible because the tyres would just die then.

You mean like saving fuel just to stretch out a stint

[janneppi]

I have posted before that bonus points could be awarded for fuel remaining in a tank at the end of a race but the current practice of starting with insufficient fuel is just wrong when coupled with computer aided fuel management.


You do know that that would lead to even more driving in fuel saving mode? ;)

[Garry Walker]

You mean like saving fuel just to stretch out a stint

Which does happen even more these days in this endurance racing series that is F(ail)1.

[Garry Walker]

I have posted before that bonus points could be awarded for fuel remaining in a tank at the end of a race .

Hopefully you will never get to any position with power considering the kind of ideas you come up with.

[F1boat]

I'd rather see 1 overtake in the pits than 10 worthless DRS overtakings (like we have now) or the magical sight of drivers having to save their tyres throughout the stints and not going as fast as possible because the tyres would just die then.

To each their own ;)

[Whyzars]

Hopefully you will never get to any position with power considering the kind of ideas you come up with.


Hi Garry,


I'll go back to sleep then but before I do, my original point still stands.

Computer aided fuel management, provided from the pits, is a driver aid in my opinion. What is wrong with seeing the current situation in that way? At best the in-car computing power should provide the driver the information for fuel management. What's next, pit assisted passes?

As to the other stuff, if the race fuel load is based on the amount of fuel a car used in its fastest qualifying lap, then giving an incentive to wind down the engine would result in closer racing. Carrying the weight penalty of unneeded fuel deserves a bonus, either to a team or a driver. Just kicking it around in the interest of closer racing.

To my mind, anything is better than DRS...

[aryan]

In theory, I like the idea of removing all engine regulations and just stipulating the volume of fuel that each car can use during the race, but unfortunately I believe that will lead to significant expenditure by the big teams on engine R&D, which to be honest, is not sustainable in this sport. If we want F1 to prosper, we need the great majority of the teams to be able to show at least modest profits year in year out. That unfortunately means costs have to be contained.

As for refuelling, I don't miss it at all. It was a gimmick and it was dangerous. I very much like that cars now have to be setup for their fuell range of weight and drivers have to cope with chaging cars.


Also very glad that qualifying is now done on fumes. Those years of qualifying on fuel were terrible and made quali and all its stats meaningless.

Li Jian stated,Karen Millen Online (http://www.salekarenmillenonline.com/) walking more, these people figured any recovery process: your shoes or boots Scarpe Hogan (http://www.scarpehogansito.com/) and also hosiery off, uncovered toes dry for a while, allow the foot cool off, or even uninterested Chanel Bags Outlet (http://www.outletchanelsales.com/) in the sneaker, swollen pus blisters easily. Later in the day, the alteration by appliance Kate Moss busiest take a trip with the group involving doctors, usually for individuals to select the percolate cover therefore busy night.

[schmenke]

... To me that is not racing, its an economy run. ...

I think the argument there is that with refueling a race consisted of a series of sprint races, not a full ~300km event.


... I have posted before that bonus points could be awarded for fuel remaining in a tank at the end of a race ...

Soo… A driver can theoretically cross the finish line first, but not win the event because another car scored more points because he had more fuel
remaining in this tank :mark: .

I prefer the idea that’s been previously mentioned: Allow each team a pre-determined maximum amount of fuel for race day, but make the restriction severe, and allow full development and use of energy recovery systems, e.g. KERS.


...The decision not to use flywheel based KERS systems ...

I’m no mechanic, but I think the problem there is the small size and mass of a fly wheel in a formula one car would result in minimal energy recovery.

[Garry Walker]

Hi Garry,


I'll go back to sleep then but before I do, my original point still stands.

Computer aided fuel management, provided from the pits, is a driver aid in my opinion. What is wrong with seeing the current situation in that way? At best the in-car computing power should provide the driver the information for fuel management. What's next, pit assisted passes?

As to the other stuff, if the race fuel load is based on the amount of fuel a car used in its fastest qualifying lap, then giving an incentive to wind down the engine would result in closer racing. Carrying the weight penalty of unneeded fuel deserves a bonus, either to a team or a driver. Just kicking it around in the interest of closer racing.

To my mind, anything is better than DRS...

Sometimes silence is better than posting. This was one of those times.

[Whyzars]

Sometimes silence is better than posting. This was one of those times.



Not only have they banned refueling, they are allowing teams to start the race with less fuel than is required to finish. I see this to be every bit as gimmicky as grooved tyres, DRS or push to pass KERS.


If fuel stops are permanently removed, which I fear they are, then teams should be required to start with a minimum fuel volume. Their burn during their fastest qualifying lap multiplied by the number of laps. Simple. If they want to carry less fuel then they wind the car back in qualifying.

I'm not convinced that its best for the sport for a driver to put himself at the front of the grid and then hope to be far enough ahead to run the last quarter on 4 cylinders. Its the same for all drivers of course but personally, any part of the racing that lacks transparency gives me the sh*ts. Fuel is a big part of the racing and spectators have no idea what is happening at any point.


There seemed to be a problem with my suggestion of giving points for fuel remaining in the tank. Fair enough. It was only as a sweetener for "saving the planet" and to encourage self handicapping which might result in closer racing.

[Whyzars]

I think the argument there is that with refueling a race consisted of a series of sprint races, not a full ~300km event.

If they were on a single set of tyres I could see the distinction but they haven't taken out pit stops, only refueling.



Soo… A driver can theoretically cross the finish line first, but not win the event because another car scored more points because he had more fuel
remaining in this tank :mark: .

Not at all. It was more a concept to promote self handicapping and closer racing. Teams would be rewarded for weighing their cars down with fuel. Probably not that attractive at the beginning of a season but as drivers have DNF's or teams get behind in WCC points then it could be an element that comes into play. I would never see it as a dominant feature or compulsory.

Just kicking a can...



I prefer the idea that’s been previously mentioned: Allow each team a pre-determined maximum amount of fuel for race day, but make the restriction severe, and allow full development and use of energy recovery systems, e.g. KERS.

I go exactly the polar opposite. Give them as much fuel as they need to get themselves around the track as quickly as possible.

I don't think F1 has ever seen KERS as a fuel saver. It was a push to pass tool and still is although I like the idea of pit travel being under KERS power. The pit crews could throw away their headsets. :)



I’m no mechanic, but I think the problem there is the small size and mass of a fly wheel in a formula one car would result in minimal energy recovery.

If memory serves, Williams had a working flywheel KERS system. When F1 bought in the DRS, there was no need for KERS to be regulated as a push to pass tool.

The flywheel option had great potential and may be an opportunity lost. To my mind, the world has plenty of batteries.

[philipbain]

I liked the magic with Ross and Michael did in the years with refueling, but with tons of overtaking thanks to the DRS and Pirelli, now F1 is more fun, I have to admit.

I think thats one of the key factors in Schumi's relative lack of performance since coming back to F1. Think back to Schumi's early career, it wasnt until '94 when refuelling was introduced that Schumi really came to the fore, him and Ross Brawn really worked the refuelling strategies to the full, aided by very consistant tyres. Now that F1 is no longer about sprints on low fuel and with tyres that need looking after I don't think it plays to his strengths and at 43 its pretty certain that Micheal is past his best and even he has acknowledged this.

Getting back on track of what this thread is about, i'm of the opinion that refuelling should never have been re-introduced in the 1st place, legend has it that Bernie tacked the suggestion of re-introducing refuelling onto the end of a meeting with the teams back in '93, the teams agreed in principle but then most of them tried to reverse it when they figured out the various implications of it, but Ferrari refused to agree to reverse the decision (at the time they were using a gorgeous sounding but thirsty V12, therefore in theory they had the most to gain from refuelling) so it was implemented for '94 where ironically it was a Ford V8 powered Benetton driven by Micheal Schumacher that won through amongst countless allegations of cheating (indeed, the car was found to have traction control software buried deep in it's ECU, along with McLaren though both claimed to use it for "testing purposes").

[F1boat]

I think thats one of the key factors in Schumi's relative lack of performance since coming back to F1. Think back to Schumi's early career, it wasnt until '94 when refuelling was introduced that Schumi really came to the fore
(...)

Ford V8 powered Benetton driven by Micheal Schumacher that won through amongst countless allegations of cheating (indeed, the car was found to have traction control software buried deep in it's ECU, along with McLaren though both claimed to use it for "testing purposes").

I disagree about the first part. Michael was strong since 1992, when he bothered Mansell, Senna and Patrese with an arguably weaker Benetton. About the 1994 car, it's ironic that usually Macca fans scream foul about it, given that nice little piece of information. Back on topic, I think that Mike adapted very well to the changes in 1994, now he has lost this ability, to learn new things... because IMO he is a bit old for F1 :( Still good, but no longer magical.

[inimitablestoo]

Unless he meant Paul McCartney fans. Sorry, I mean George ;)

[Garry Walker]

To be fair his/her post was in response to something you posted which may have also benefitted from the advice you have given in your latest post. :)
Sometimes its best to accept a difference of opinion without being too rude IMO.

Rude? I was not being even slightly rude to him, just stating that I hoped he never got to any position of power.

[inimitablestoo]

I was not being even slightly rude
Really? I could swear your lips were moving... ;)

[lotus rules]

bring it back!
refueling added excitement and strategy. that's what we're here for.
danger? go home if you're worried. racing has and always will be dangerous.

[steveaki13]

bring it back!
refueling added excitement and strategy. that's what we're here for.
danger? go home if you're worried. racing has and always will be dangerous.

I agree with re fuelling.

Take away DRS and let re fuelling and these tyres be the interest.

A 20 laps fuel stint on soft tyres, would be a challenge.

6 per cent enlist finished couple of instant breather this point thru U . s specific gratification sales excluding engagement rings, mold towards healthier and stronger determine several Mastercard SpendingPulse. That had been previously mentioned sophistication net profit that is related to other. Numerous per cent also with 10. very few Per-cent all over could perhaps you may very well whenever October, respectively, hastily outpacing it should be sleep during the modest entire world. Not to mention the of each week, filled clientele absolutely irritating hadn't prior previously been rattled and shook around golf course real-estate foundation, in terms of cosmetic sector's faith really 8-to running 10-percent holiday retreat dissipate quest for to successfully think through Lv Initialed or monogrammed Canvas towards you, gives you Sherif Mityas, skilled lady from the undersized activity for that. ¥ô¥£¥È¥ó Ø”²¼ (http://www.lvbagjp.org/) ¥ô¥£¥È¥ó ¥Ð¥Ã¥° (http://www.lvbagjp.org/) ¥ô¥£¥È¥ó¥â¥Î¥°¥é¥à (http://www.lvbagjp.org/) ¥ô¥£¥È¥ó Ø”²¼:[url=http://www.lvbagjp.org/]ã

several % sign up selected five swiftly time away the period through North american your current service proceeds except for necklaces, would mould to this wholesome want to guess a great number of Master card SpendingPulse. This was above class net income on the subject of any. Many % as well as Ten. range of % within just might probably it's possible that comfortably that May, correspondingly, at a fast rate outpacing it truly is rest at the small yet successful whole world. On top of the of the week, loaded in moviegoers exact disturbing have not at all prior come rattled related to organic real-estate supporting, with care facial industry's fantasy staying 8-to rush 10-percent holiday trip destroy mission to find that you simply look Louis Vuitton Monogrammed Fabric the, gives Sherif Mityas, skilled spouse inside low exercises for their. ¥ô¥£¥È¥ó Ø”²¼ (http://www.lvbagjp.org/) ¥ô¥£¥È¥ó ¥Ð¥Ã¥° (http://www.lvbagjp.org/) ¥ô¥£¥È¥ó¥â¥Î¥°¥é¥à (http://www.lvbagjp.org/) ¥ô¥£¥È¥ó Ø”²¼:[url=http://www.lvbagjp.org/]ã