Do you want Refueling back?

[segedunum]

Be more specific. I can't remember any race where similarly quick teams running the same tyre brand had differing race strategy because of the tyre.

It's not really about differing the strategy because most teams will come out with the same general numbers initially. It's about having bigger variances in tyre wear rate and making it as variable as possible so that teams have to react in the race, creating the unexpected.

It hasn't happened as much as it should have done this year, but the races where we've had it have been pretty reasonable. Canada was a good example and with a range of harder and much softer tyres available it can be made much better. If that happens then going longer and slower with less tyres or going shorter and faster with more tyres is more feasible. When refuelling is thrown into that mix what happens is that it is the fuel that dictates when a car will come in, and that has very much been a known quantity over the past fifteen years. Pitting becomes beneficial rather than a team trying to avoid coming in as much as possible.

Tyres were theoretically a limiting factor, but it never materialized. All teams had the same thing to deal with tyre wise. The differing brands, michelin and BS are giving the illusion tyre add variation.

Is that all you're going to do now Ringo? Repeat exactly what I've said about refuelling, almost word for word, and substitute refuelling for tyres?

The tyre war made things more interesting, and it's interesting that you've finally half conceded it, but there's no reason why there couldn't be a wider variation in control tyres.

[komninosm]

[...]

From a technical point of view refueling should remain banned.

• Re fueling does not set an incentive to design race cars for more efficiency. It tends to be coupled with unlimited fuel use which IMO is not the right way to go and sets all the wrong signals.
• Re fueling is inherently less safe than a re fueling ban. The increased entertainment aspect compares unfavorably with the increased risk of death and injury to drivers and mechanics.
• Re fueling is almost certainly coupled with race fuel qualifying which destroys a great traditional challenge and robs the viewers of the only objective way to compare team mates and cars.
• Re fueling encourages off track passing in the pits and helps perpetuate the tinkering with aero rules, which ultimately is a masturbatory process for F1. There is no real satisfaction in becoming a constructor champion by finding the next loop hole in some arcane aero regulations that tend to transform the cars into moving chicanes.

All wrong, again.
1)Efficiency... this is speed racing. Not all kinds of racing need to be designed around efficiency. Even with refueling there is a need for efficiency though, since using less fuel means faster pit-stop and faster lap times due to less load.
2)Refueling can be made safer with a simple sensor, which already exists (I think even Toyota made one) and doesn't let the car move when hose is attached. The increased risk is false since the faster pit-stops for tires only have increased risk for pit crew due to mistakes from pressure and others. Increased entertainment is true.
3)Almost certainly doesn't mean certainly. Just because an added rule can be silly doesn't mean we have to use that one too. False dichotomy fallacy.
4)Refueling does encourage some off-track passing. Then again we had tons of off-track passes this year didn't we? Non-issue. Also refueling may have given us more battles for the win (or position) if the number 2 car wasn't stuck behind a slower car for ever (due to no need for refuel) and never got a chance to reach the car ahead he was really fighting. Did you watch the last race?
What you say about aero may be true, but is completely irrelevant.

[...]

Larger fuel tanks where not a drop of fuel is spilt, and hasn't been for some time, and where refuelling is done in a safe and static environment.

They call it risk because it is random. You can't say it will never happen because it hasn't happened yet. The risk of bigger tanks, fuller (on average) with fuel is small, but not smaller than refueling with sensors. Also the errors due to faster tire only pit-stops are a much greater risk than both. We were really lucky this year. Those flying tires alone could have caused fatalities and many injuries.

I doubt if it will change anyone's mind, but I used to work as a risk management consultant for the UK Department For Transport (back in 2004).

If anyone cares to ask me, the fuel is much safer when contained in a bullet-proof kevlar sack coated in carbon fibre than it ever will be whilst being pumped through a hose under high pressure.

Additionally, the fuel contained in the tank (the afforementioned kevlar sack) is only a primary risk to the driver, whilst the fuel being pumped is a danger to the whole pit crew. Refuelling amplifies the danger by an order of magnitude by exposing a much larger number of people to the risk, whilst increasing the chance of leakage and vapourisation.

Ergo, refuelling is the least safe option.

Ringo : Maybe you should check the crudentials of the people on the other side of the argument before you tell us to ask for a professional opinion.

They should ask for their money back. :p
There hasn't been any really nasty accident (no deaths either) from refueling. You neglect to acknowledge that sensors exist that can make the driving away with the hose attached impossible. You also neglect to acknowledge the heavier risks involved with faster tire-only pit-stops. People get run-over way more often than with refueling.
When you talk about orders of magnitude you're just pulling numbers out of thin air. Don't try to fast-talk your way out of it like that. Maybe that works at the Department of Transport, but not here. :p

[...]

[andrew]

I can only think of 2 serious in race incidents related to refueling. Raikonnen's drive through a McLaren fireball last year and of course Benetton ruining a perfectly good B194 at Hockenheim in 1994, not to mention singeing Jos Verstappen evr so slightly. So 2 serious incidents in 16 years is nothing really.

On the whole though, getting rid of refueling is a step in the right direction as it only created false overtaking. However, until the design of the cars is changed to allow racing (and on-track overtaking) then it is largely irrelevant as to whether there are fuel stops or not.

[mep]

Having a tyre war is something we really don't want because the races will only be decided by the brand of tyres you are using. All the effort you do with your car has little value when you have the wrong tyre brand mounted on it. It adds absolutely nothing unexpected as it will not take long until it’s clear which tyre is the better one.
That’s definitely not what we want to see so you can stop arguing about tyres.

[myurr]

komninosm, there was talk of forcing the teams to go back to metallic brakes to help increase the stopping distances of the cars. Just because the brakes can lock the wheels at low speed doesn't mean they need to be as powerful as they currently are at high speed when downforce makes it more difficult to lock the wheels. Reducing down force or tyre grip or aero would have a similar effect - it's just one of many solutions to what is currently perceived to be a problem.

1)Efficiency... this is speed racing. Not all kinds of racing need to be designed around efficiency. Even with refueling there is a need for efficiency though, since using less fuel means faster pit-stop and faster lap times due to less load.

Efficiency is a huge part of F1, always will be. All parts on those cars are designed to have just enough life to complete the race distances they are require to. That is efficient design. Like it or not the same applies to fuel efficiency, and carrying all that fuel around for the entire race distance means that teams have to pursue fuel efficient solutions. With refuelling the potential returns for focusing on fuel efficiency are diminished.

Personally I'd rather F1's rules were opened up, including a lot of the aero rules and the engine formula, but with control tyres and the FIA dictating a fuel budget for each race. That way the FIA can control the pace of the cars whilst allowing for a variety of competing solutions to the problem. But I digress...

2)Refueling can be made safer with a simple sensor, which already exists (I think even Toyota made one) and doesn't let the car move when hose is attached. The increased risk is false since the faster pit-stops for tires only have increased risk for pit crew due to mistakes from pressure and others. Increased entertainment is true.

For the most part yes, but sensors fail and you know that teams will increasingly rely on those sensors. What happens if the driver pits and sits there with 1st engaged and the throttle floored so that the nanosecond the sensor releases the car then he's away, particularly with a Ferrari style button system for tracking cars in the pit lane? What if the sensor then fails and gives a false reading saying that the hose has been removed, launching the car whilst it's still be worked on?

3)Almost certainly doesn't mean certainly. Just because an added rule can be silly doesn't mean we have to use that one too. False dichotomy fallacy.

To do otherwise would mean everyone would converge on the same strategy, pushing the maximum fuel they'll get away with in the first stint to make sure no one else can run a lap or two longer and overtake in the pit lane. With refuelling it's unlikely you'll ever get much variation on strategy, the balance of the cars will always be optimum (or near enough), and the wear rates on the tyres will always be kept down. Running race fuel from the start means more opportunity for variation in factors other than fuel load.

4)Refueling does encourage some off-track passing. Then again we had tons of off-track passes this year didn't we? Non-issue. Also refueling may have given us more battles for the win (or position) if the number 2 car wasn't stuck behind a slower car for ever (due to no need for refuel) and never got a chance to reach the car ahead he was really fighting. Did you watch the last race?
What you say about aero may be true, but is completely irrelevant.

It's not a non-issue, it's at the heart of what a majority of fans want to see addressed in F1 (according to the fan surveys and the personalities within the sport). At the last race the problem wasn't lack of refuelling, it was that the supposedly marginal option tyres were durable enough to last pretty much the entire race distance and that cars 2 seconds a lap quicker than the car in front had no way to get past on track. Making it so they're more likely to get past because one or other car has to pit does not solve the fundamental problem of the on track racing.

Even if you don't care for it, on track passing is a big deal for most who watch F1. I don't want to see artificial passing and hate the idea of the adjustable rear wing, but I do want to see the best drivers fighting it out man to man on track. The cars should be made much more difficult to drive, so that the drivers are more likely to make minor mistakes (it is hoped that this will be the case next year without refuelling and without adjustable front wings). Equally the punishment for minor mistakes should be smaller with drivers able to fight their way back through the field. The ban on DDD's may help with this (I'm hopeful), and the variation in relative pace throughout the race due to no refuelling will also help. It's not even about drivers always being able to make it past, they just need to have a chance of making it past so that with skill the best drivers will be able to make overtakes that stick. The biggest problem for me in the last race was that a driver like Hamilton or Alonso, who (like them or not) are probably the best overtakers in the field, never even looked like they'd be able to get close to an overtake. Despite having cars a couple of seconds a lap quicker. Refuelling will not do anything to help that.

[Giblet]

2)Refueling can be made safer with a simple sensor, which already exists (I think even Toyota made one) and doesn't let the car move when hose is attached. The increased risk is false since the faster pit-stops for tires only have increased risk for pit crew due to mistakes from pressure and others. Increased entertainment is true.

Any system can and does fail from time to time, and putting all your faith into a single point in a line is not well placed.

Nothing is ever 100%, so who are you, I, or anyone else to say that a calculated risk is worth it to drivers and teams? Tire changes might be more dangerous now, but other means could be looked at aside of refueling to fix it's dangers. Sensors could also be implemented in the wheels to ensure a proper fit, so refueling is not the only way to help that problem. The two issues are not skipping down the street holding hands.

I am sure that refueling can be made safer, but it is a dangerous procedure taking place involving humans under pressure, and risk can be minimized but never eliminated, and to me you gloss over that safety issue a little too quickly.

I think the poll has hit the nail on the head. The fans here at least are divided almost equally, so opinions are split down the middle, and there is no easy answer.

But all the other things aside, F1's current way of operating is to lean things out. Reduce ancillary costs around the cars themselves. Owning, lugging, and maintaining two fuel rigs per team is a tangible cost, and when added with other cost cutting measures, the reason it is gone becomes more clear.

For this reason, and others I have mentioned previously, I don't want to see refueling back until a couple of issues can be guaranteed. A knee jerk reaction back to refueling as a new tire supplier comes in might not help. I want to see another year before it is considered again.

[ringo]

I doubt if it will change anyone's mind, but I used to work as a risk management consultant for the UK Department For Transport (back in 2004).

If anyone cares to ask me, the fuel is much safer when contained in a bullet-proof kevlar sack coated in carbon fibre than it ever will be whilst being pumped through a hose under high pressure.

Additionally, the fuel contained in the tank (the afforementioned kevlar sack) is only a primary risk to the driver, whilst the fuel being pumped is a danger to the whole pit crew. Refuelling amplifies the danger by an order of magnitude by exposing a much larger number of people to the risk, whilst increasing the chance of leakage and vapourisation.

Ergo, refuelling is the least safe option.

Ringo : Maybe you should check the crudentials of the people on the other side of the argument before you tell us to ask for a professional opinion.

Risk is one thing, but the statistics show that refueling is safe. No more harmful than refueling your car. Over 10 years of refueling and not 1 major accident requiring hospital car.

It's risker to be in the open with an African lion, but statistics show that a hippo has killed more people per year. The stats hold more weight than an estimation. Refueling can be seen in the same light.

Throw in a tyre limited pit stop and we have pit crew being knocked out cold with flying wheels.
Trends show refueling to be safer than non refueling.

Safety is a straw man arguemnt anyway, it wasn't the reason behind banning refueling, no evidence was there to suggest it was unsafe.

[Giblet]

As for the tank size problem, a smaller tank is made of less material, and a large shunt directly to it will be more catastrophic. A larger tank is made of more material, has more surface area, and more ability to absorb shock.

A 4 inch square of material has less give than a 6 inch square piece. More area = more flex = less chance of rupture.

[Giblet]

Ringo, well said. I completely understand the other side of the argument, but at the same time, if F1 had been made safer before Imola 94, things would be very different now.

Part of mitigating risk is spotting it prior to an incident. And to me, what happened to Kimi was scary. Massa driving away with a full hose of fuel as well. With increasingly tight body work and exposed exhausts closer to the fuel, things could get hairy very quickly.

I do understand that safety was not the reason for the ban, it was to aid racing, and to reduce costs. But it is a time bomb, and some day, some time, refueling will cause a death, major burn, or some other injury. It is unfortunately a matter of time.

So again, I come back to what is acceptable risk?

[ringo]

It's not really about differing the strategy because most teams will come out with the same general numbers initially. It's about having bigger variances in tyre wear rate and making it as variable as possible so that teams have to react in the race, creating the unexpected.

This never happened with the same brand of tyre. All cars wear the tyre about the same, never enough to warrant a different setup or compromise relative to another team.
I don't recall a race this year where 1 car simply could get much more from the tyres than another.
The only car that has done it, is the Ferrari, and it still wasn't enough to change the race much, or allow the F110 an advantage at the end of a race.
Remember the old days when a leading driver could be reeled in becuase his tyres were done? When last have we seen that?
That was with refueling and balls to the wall driving. We simply don't get that anymore.

It hasn't happened as much as it should have done this year, but the races where we've had it have been pretty reasonable. Canada was a good example and with a range of harder and much softer tyres available it can be made much better. If that happens then going longer and slower with less tyres or going shorter and faster with more tyres is more feasible. When refuelling is thrown into that mix what happens is that it is the fuel that dictates when a car will come in, and that has very much been a known quantity over the past fifteen years. Pitting becomes beneficial rather than a team trying to avoid coming in as much as possible.

Canada was more of redbull getting the strategy wrong. Come next year, everybody will start on the faster tyre, not the longer lasting one. The teams have the heavy running data now, so we will see a convergence in performance next year. It will always be like that without refueling; 1 optimal strategy that all the front runners use.
The fuel does indeed negate tyre wear when the cars will come in, but i do remember seeing at one time worn tyres dictating when a stop can be made, and a fitting amount of fuel added to complement it.
Rain is a perfect example even though it's not necessarily worn tyres. Hamilton let the tyre dictate his stop last in in the euro GP as well.

Now be honest, what do you hope to see next year with the pirellis?
I expect more of the same, just 2 stops this time and everyone coming in at the same time.

[mep]

If anyone cares to ask me, the fuel is much safer when contained in a bullet-proof kevlar sack coated in carbon fibre than it ever will be whilst being pumped through a hose under high pressure.

Additionally, the fuel contained in the tank (the afforementioned kevlar sack) is only a primary risk to the driver, whilst the fuel being pumped is a danger to the whole pit crew. Refuelling amplifies the danger by an order of magnitude by exposing a much larger number of people to the risk, whilst increasing the chance of leakage and vapourisation.

Ergo, refuelling is the least safe option.

I agree when you just compare no refuelling against refuelling it’s more dangerous to refuel a car but me must keep the whole environment in mind we are talking about here.
We are talking about motorsport here.

-They are driving ridiculous fast in open wheeled, open cockpit cars on dangerous tracks like Monaco, Valencia, Singapore, Melbourne, Spa, South Korea…
Do you think those tracks are safe? They are not and never can be. A crash on the wrong spot can end very bad.

-Tyres are not covered and the cars have many sharp edges. Even a very soft touch can destroy the tyres. As if this would not be enough its possible that one car gets lifted of when two tyres touch. Causing an unpredictable danger as nobody can know how such a car will fly trough the air and where it will come down.

-Cockpits are open. The only protection against parts or complete cars a driver has is his helmet. It’s one of the most dangerous aspects of the sport. Alone this year there have been a couple of very close situations. It’s a pure matter of luck that so few serious incidents have happened so far. Its absolutely unpredictable what and how something can happen. Just think of Surtees and Massa.

-They are racing against each other this means they can always touch and one car can leave the track in an unpredictable way. They are even driving during rain conditions, with reduced grip and many times without any free view.

So now let’s look on refuelling again.
Ok you are handling a burnable fluid so things can happen but you know what you are doing and the possible dangerous cases are all known and predictable. So what are those cases?

1. The driver can launch to early ripping of the fuel rig or to run over the mechanics.
If the fuel rig gets ripped of some build in valves get closed so only very little fuel gets spilled. Anyway its simple to prevent this when the driver just doesn’t go to early.

Mechanics can still get run over because there are still tyre changes. In fact this problem got worse because:
A. The stop times got very short and limited by the tire change.
B. Stop times became much more important because a lost position in pit can never be regained on track so the drivers are more nervous now.

2. There can be an issue with the fuel rig and some fuel can get spilled.
It is rare to happen and usually it’s just very little fuel (due to build in safety valves) that gets spilled and is extinguished in seconds especially because you expect it to happen and have extinguishers ready at hand. Also the mechanics and drivers are wearing fire resistant clothes.

To sum it up there are very few cases that can happen, everybody knows them and everybody is trained how to react on them. The actual danger is therefore predictable. Its comparable to using a welding gear.
If you compare it to all the other dangers that exist in the sport, which can be fatal and are absolutely unpredictable it’s OK to say refuelling is not dangerous.
It is even ridiculous to complain about the danger of refuelling and ignoring all the other real dangers.

[WhiteBlue]

From a technical point of view refueling should remain banned.

• Re fueling does not set an incentive to design race cars for more efficiency. It tends to be coupled with unlimited fuel use which IMO is not the right way to go and sets all the wrong signals.
  .

All wrong, again.
1)Efficiency... this is speed racing. Not all kinds of racing need to be designed around efficiency. Even with refueling there is a need for efficiency though, since using less fuel means faster pit-stop and faster lap times due to less load.

This is one of the charming posts that make people go away from this place. I will not go into all points I made and what was answered. I simply focus on one point and show why this discussion style is frustrating:

"All wrong, again." Is that a technical point? It seems to be posted only to annoy.

"Efficiency... this is speed racing. Not all kinds of racing need to be designed around efficiency." Thank you for that bit of opinion. Btw, I don't share that opinion. It is in the nature of the engineer to improve designs for efficiency. IMO efficiency is a valid argument in any technical discussion of F1 sporting rules.

"Even with refueling there is a need for efficiency though, since using less fuel means faster pit-stop and faster lap times due to less load." This fails to address the core of the issue. If the race fuel is typically split into 50 kg loads a 100 kg weight penalty is a much higher incentive to massively reduce the fuel consumption. Carrying 100 kg more is much more punishing compared to saving some refueling time. Let us play the race engineer:

Refueled car carries between 50 and 0 kg. Un refueled car carries between 150 and 0 kg. The average weight is 75 kg vs 25 kg. The difference in average weight is 50 kg. The time penalty per 10 kg per lap may be 0.2 s. This means we get a time penalty of 60 s per race over a sixty lap GP distance.

Let us assume that refueling from first flow to end of flow takes 5 seconds at 12 L/s flow. Let us further assume a fuel use reduction of 33% as the FiA looks for in 2013. In your case the incentive would be cutting 3.3 s from refueling time. In my case the saving would 20 s. It looks like a clear cut case for me.

I would be interested to see some figures to support your opinion if you disagree with my figuring.

[myurr]

For anyone still beating the safety drum either pro-refuelling or anti it, surely the safest solution would be no refuelling but with a minimum tyre stop time of 5 seconds. Best of both worlds from a safety perspective.

Disingenuous from a racing perspective though, so lets focus on what is best for the racing rather than what is best from a theoretical safety stand point.

[Dragonfly]

No, I don't want refueling back. Teams were too cautious this year and the endurance rules on engines and gearboxes really kill the possible divergence in race tactics. Maybe the BS tyres with the mandatory tyre change too contributed to the lack of different approaches.

[Pierce89]

Refueling and tyre stops are not key to real overtaking but create a high speed game of leapfrog.

The problem is that the cars can't get close enough to the car in front without damaging the tyres.

The solution to improving racing is simple:

• Slow the cars down - if you want cars that are stupidly fast then stick to computer games.
  Reduce downforce and the overall reliance on areo and design the cars to be more reliant on mechanical grip.
  Reduce braking efficency to increase the braking zone distances - that might bring back the "last of the late brakers" type passing.

Complaining about Herman Tilke and his tracks is only a very small part of the whole overtaking thing though if the cars were sorted out as above, then maybe his tracks won't appear so terrible (apart from Valencia - street circuits are rarely good!).

On another point, the poll above needs a 3rd option. I suggest that an option of sometjhing along the lines of "Refueling is only a sticking plaster solution and only creates false overtaking". At the moment, I cannot vote as I don't think this is a simple Yes or No question.

"cars that are stupidly fast" is what F1 traditionally has been about. If you really distill it down F1 is about covering a given distance on a given track faster than anyone in the world. Overtaking is just a means to an end. If you worry to much about overtaking it becomes an artificial entertainment spectacle. F1 was meant to show who build the fastest cars and who could drive them fastest. The overtaking debate is because the rules are so tight that you can't prove anything about who can build the fastest car.(that would require imagination) So now that F1 lost it's purpose, the want for overtaking is just a new form of entertainment to keep it alive scince it's no longer relevant.