Do you want Refueling back?

[WhiteBlue]

"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.

GP racing has existed long before F1 came along. The Grand Prix was awarded for covering a massive race distance which used to be a challenge of endurance and speed for the most advanced race cars of their respective times. As technology evolved more and more restrictions were introduced to curb the ever increasing performance and the majestic tracks of the past were shrunken in the name of safety and TV friendliness. Most of the times F1 racing has operated without in race refueling. It is a good point to take away from a historic review.

The other point to consider is the traditional difference between qualifying and race trim. Qualifying is the part of the show where the cars are taken to extreme limits for a short time. Historically there have been huge differences between quali and race trim to a point where drivers could not only drive the cars with empty fuel tanks but could also use dedicated engine and tyre designs that were optimized just for two or three laps. This is in contrast to the race where the material has to last two hours or 300 km.

So if we go back and look at the concept of F1/GP racing we see that there has been a distinct performance and reliability difference between qualifying and racing. IMO it makes sense to keep that difference. We get the treat of the speed show on saturday. The grand prix on sunday remains a challenge to cover a much bigger distance which requires the drivers to focus on bringing the car home and not make any mistakes. It is not humanly possible to drive 60 laps on qualifying speed. Racing is and has to remain different to qualifying.

There are good reason not to refuel and I have listed some of them. I will not go into it again. People should realize that having insanely fast cars doesn't mean they have to be operated on the edge of the performance envelope all of the time. This will simply not happen in a 60 lap 80 min race. To expect it is unrealistic. Your best chance to see breath taking driving is keeping qualifying on low fuel. The chance to retain an exciting qualifying format with refueling is small. In the name of entertainment they will go back to race fuel qualifying. In the end you come away worse. Qualifying speed and pureness is compromised and in the race there will still be dull periods when all drivers hold station waiting for the next round of pit stops.

[andrew]

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.

The cars can still be fast and give exciting racing by being a bit slower. F1 is traditionally about RACING, not a high speed procession with artificial overtaking created by mandatory pitstops.

F1 is about the best machinery with the best drivers but it is a form of racing and racing needs overtaking to be interesting. Races that start and finish with little or no change in the running order are dull.

[ringo]

The cars should not be slowed down, they should be sped up.
They need to be producing at least 300 more horse power.
Make the engine stronger than the brakes and aero, instead of leaving the engine and weakening everything else.

Slower is more logical, but F1 wont be any different than the feeder series, and that's a buzz kill. Slower = quiter and less spectacular as well. The drivers wont be seen as superhuman or brave any more since the slower the cars get, the smaller the gap between an F1 driver and a civilian driver becomes.

When you have 1,050 Hp with the same aero as today, then we have ourselves a spectacle. Slightly more danger, but that's the selling point of the game.

[andrew]

So you want less overtaking and racing than there currently is?

[ringo]

You increased braking distances by weakening the brakes. I increased it by increasing the speed of the car.
If the car is going much faster, it has to brake further out and for a longer time.
Though i must admit, a slower cars around monaco would be better racing, however i'm not sure if it will look as spectacular as taming a 1000hp car around the circuit.

[Green Genes]

Most people can agree that a wet race throws up lots of excitement, so why not make the tires so hard they provide no more grip in the dry than today's inters do in the rain?

[WhiteBlue]

When you have 1,050 Hp with the same aero as today, then we have ourselves a spectacle. Slightly more danger, but that's the selling point of the game.

I think that you have not thought that through. F1 has never had 1,050 hp with three tons of downforce in race trim. This season we got 6 G lateral acceleration in 130R in Suzuka which is a record indicating that we also have unprecedented downforce combined with 750 hp. To increase the power by 40% would be totally irresponsible. Older tracks like Canada, Suzuka or Monza would become death traps for rookie pilots. I suggest that you try to figure your ideas out before you present them. This is a technical board and not a playground for fantasies. Let's keep it technical.

[WhiteBlue]

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

You fail at engineering. I give up. You guys twist everything to suit your failed arguments and refuse to acknowledge even the simplest of facts. It's almost like religious fanaticism.

Before you criticize other users you may want to answer the open questions you have avoided to answer so far.

[andrew]

You fail at engineering.
I give up. You guys twist everything to suit your failed arguments and refuse to acknowledge even the simplest of facts. It's almost like religious fanaticism.

I really have to ask. You open a topic which will create engineering discussion and then procede to insult those who contribute? How's that work?

Perhaps you could advise of you engineering background?

I don't claim to have much in the way of engineering knowledge but threads like this are a great opportunity to learn, even if you don't write anything.

[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.

You fail at engineering.
I give up. You guys twist everything to suit your failed arguments and refuse to acknowledge even the simplest of facts. It's almost like religious fanaticism.

Please tell my why I am wrong then. The thing is I really don't care if I am wrong, I take the opportunity to learn if that is the case. You seem to care too much, and keep on and on theng et frustrated in the end when people don't bend to your will.

Why do you care so much? Is it pure passion for refueling? A deep seated need to one up anyone who disagrees with you? Do you just like to argue?

This is a discussion, not a contest to see who is right. Explain to me how a larger piece of material has less give then a smaller one? My experince says large = more flex.

I would gladly discuss anything with anyone, but you get too personal, way too fast. You have not been here very long, but I have seen more acidic personal posts from you than anyone else, and we have had some serious acid here before. Telling someone they 'fail at engineering' is not a discussion, it's a childish attack on a stranger. Grow up or stop posting.

The collective knowledge on this board is greater than yours, mine, or anyones on any given topic. Try flowing with that instead of pushing it all away.

[segedunum]

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.

Well, yes it has. It happened in Canada this year. What we need is more of that with more marginal tyres with a wider range of compounds. Different cars and different driving styles have more than proved that wear rates can be made more of a variable.

Have you not read what I've written?

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.

I expect to see tyres that can't last at least 75% of a race and a wider range of compounds where wear rates with different cars and driving styles come into play. Whether we'll get it and Pirelli are brave is another matter, but it is possible and has been in the past.

I don't know where you're going with this Ringo. You're simply trying to apply what we saw consistently over the last fifteen years with refeulling as a variable to tyres but it's not providing a solution. We can't change the nature of refuelling, hence it was a dead end, but we can change the nature of tyres. Saying "Oh, there's no variation with tyres so let's go back to refuelling" isn't a solution.

[autogyro]

It is a primary problem with handling liquid inflamable fuels.
Once the vehicle base eventualy becomes all electric both road and race cars will be safer and much more convenient to use.
Refueling in F1 is dead.

[andrew]

There is always going to be the problem of the fuel that is in the hose if a car pulls away whilst still being connected to the fuel pump - it is impossible to get by this problem if a driver is going to drive off whith the hose connected.

The connection between the car and the fuel hose nozzle is probably as safe as it can be,and I would imagine that it is fail-safe to an extent, given the proximity of engine vents and the exhaust. Refueling during races is as safe as it is likely to be and has been since 1994. A handful of incidents in 16 years is good - and 1 of them was caused by Benetton fiddling with the fueling equipment I think.

[...]

[segedunum]

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.

Hmmm, so let's ignore the facts about the accidents we've had with refuelling because most of them didn't require hospitalisation. Fantastic risk management there.

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.

What trends? We've had wheels coming off when there was refuelling. We've also had pit crews being pulled away with the car with the fuel rig attached, and more than a few broken bones to go with it.

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

Well no. We've established that refuelling gave us no variables with regards to racing, which is why people now seem to be arguing that tyres differences are just the same, and we've also seen more potentially fatal accidents with fuel rigs as the contributor. So, there is no strawman argument there. It didn't make the racing better nor was it safer.

The accidents that have been pointed out have been waved away with brilliant arguments like 'poor Kimi' getting ignited fuel in his eyes. Incredible.

[ringo]

When you have 1,050 Hp with the same aero as today, then we have ourselves a spectacle. Slightly more danger, but that's the selling point of the game.

I think that you have not thought that through. F1 has never had 1,050 hp with three tons of downforce in race trim. This season we got 6 G lateral acceleration in 130R in Suzuka which is a record indicating that we also have unprecedented downforce combined with 750 hp. To increase the power by 40% would be totally irresponsible. Older tracks like Canada, Suzuka or Monza would become death traps for rookie pilots. I suggest that you try to figure your ideas out before you present them. This is a technical board and not a playground for fantasies. Let's keep it technical.

That's the point. There has to be risk involved for something to be a spectacle. The spectators need to be stimulated, by sound sight and danger.
It's a circus afterall.
But let me correct you on one thing, the G force says more about the slick tyres than the aero.