Do you want Refueling back?

[D'Leh]

The best solution is no refueling for multiple reasons.

First off, if you really wanted to completely open up the rulebook about it you'd have to have the teams develop their own refueling systems instead of buying a licensed one from a monopoly supplier. That would cause a serious development race and subsequently increase cost while lowering safety for everyone involved. Reaaalllly bad.

With a licensed refueling system supplier like there was until 2009 we'd be back in 2009 effectively. There was no rule that forced anyone to refuel. But of course a lighter car is faster than a heavy one so "not refueling" is not an option under a rulebook like that. So this would mean back to processions of waiting until the other guy has to refuel. Then do a few qualifying laps and hope to end up in front. On track action would suffer greatly because if you try to actually overtake someone on track you potentially ruin your tyres and thereby make the few important qualifiers a lot more difficult. The result is a return to the snoozefest we happily ended after 2009.

Going without refueling is better. With the tyres Bridgestone supplied last year it sucked a bit, because they didn't degrade most often. But thankfully Pirelli provides tyres that do. So now nobody can tell for sure which strategy will be best. That way nobody can be sure what the others plan. And because they don't know they have to do something on track if they want to be sure to get ahead. Or use a very smart strategy, which is fine from my perspective.

[bot6]

I'm against the return of refueling for two reasons.

1) it was dangerous, for the mechanics and for the drivers. How many times have we seen cars catch fire in the pits because of an ill bound fuel nozzle? That is dangerous, especially for the mechanic handling said nozzle.

2) I think it's interesting that using less fuel can actually make you go faster. One of the main advantages of the Renault engine is that it uses less fuel than the competition, leading to smaller tanks and therefore sizable weight savings, especially at the start of the race.
Renault have always used the fact that they are a bit down on power to ask for engine mods, but they always omit that they are more fuel efficient than the Ferrari or Merc engine. But I seriously believe that fuel efficiency is the reason Red Bull stuck with Renault instead of switching to Ferrari when they could have.

I think they should keep the refueling ban and limit the size of the tanks (to maybe 80% of today's average capacity), with less restrictive engine regulations. It would be interesting to see what the teams would come up with to win races with a limited amount of fuel. While keeping the ban on turbos.

[she_spools_180]

Apologies, but there is too much to catch up on to read the whole thread, so what I say may have already been mentioned, but I'm going to voice my opinion anyway.

I am very much all for the return of refuelling, I like the varying strategies employed by the teams.

D'Leh,

you mention that previously it was a procession, until the driver infront had to refuel,

I have found, that since the refuelling ban, it has become a procession until the person infront has to switch tyres, which, as not an absolute necessity, in some cases, they will limp all the way home (with the person following, also limping behind them) with very worn tyres, getting slower and slower as the race goes on. Which makes it a procession from a quarter way through the race, right to the end.

My memory is a bit hazy, but I believe that Bahrain 2010 was a good example of this.

Of course, this does not happen everytime, but I have found that in 2010, compared to other years that I have watched, the processions have become a lot longer and tedious, and a little more common.

I agree with others that refuelling is a dangerous, but I enjoy the sport because it is exciting, because of different dimensions to the racing, strategies in different areas, not because it is safe.

[komninosm]

Recently I watched the 1991 Texaco/Havoline 200 at Road America. The race was won by Michael Andretti due to a better pit stop strategy, although Al Unser jr. was faster for most of the race. The latter even overtook Andretti three teams.

This race showed exactly what mid-race refuelling does to the racing: you don't have to be the fastest or best driver of the day to win. You just need a team figuring out the best possible pit stop strategy. In a racing series that is considered as a drivers' championship in the first place, there should be no place for mid-race refuelling. Besides, in my opinion this equally counts for tyre changes.

Yes, clearly all teams being allowed to refuel is unfair to some of them /facepalm

I think you missed my point. If mid-race refuelling is allowed it's intended to let teams win by having a better pit stop strategy. There's nothing unfair to it. But it has devastating consequences for the racing, especially for a racing series which is supposed to be a (or the ultimate) drivers' championship in the first place.

Teams may have different pit strategies without refueling too, your point is moot.

[ringo]

Q: What current Formula One regulation would you most like to change and why?

RB: I am so flexible and adapt very well to any rules, so I wouldn’t change much. Too many things done to the car is not great, but having said that, the (DRS) wing and all that, you adapt to that. The only thing probably that drivers don’t like - because you want to go fast - is the fact that the cars are heavy at the start of the race. So the refuelling pit stops were great - maybe not that safe, but then if you crash on a full tank that’s not the safest either. I think the cars were better to drive - and faster - with less fuel.

[bgroovers]

No thanks. Racing great without it and pit stops much more exciting now.

[Javert]

Yes absolutely,

Refuelling & Non-degrading tyres encouraged drivers to drive faster than now where you're heavy and have Pirelli

Of course the show seems better now with more overtakes, but you are watching slower cars.

[myurr]

No thanks. Racing great without it and pit stops much more exciting now.

+1

We are witnessing some great races this year with the rules finally working as they should. With refuelling we'd see far less happen on track (cars closer to quali config so less variation in pace, lighter cars are softer on the tyres, no need to risk on track overtakes, etc.) with more being decided in the pits - something we've finally overcome!

I'm happy with the current balance between some action in the pits, some on track, and different strategies playing out throughout the race. As the teams get a better handle on the tyres then we may see more convergence in strategy and less dramatic races, but I am hopeful that the combination of degrading tyres and varying fuel loads will continue to pay dividends.

I don't care one jot if the cars are a few seconds slower per lap than they were previously, you can't really visually tell on the TV anyway, as long as the racing is great.

[Florio]

I think people are always referring back to the years after refuelling was first brought back, when the engineers didn't know the optimum strategies for the races fuelwise as no one had experience, which allowed the Ross Brawns etc to perform minor miracles. Towards the end there wasn't overtaking purely due to the fact that many would not sacrafice their fuel mixture, tyres etc for making a pass when they know that their expected pit stop is in two laps time. China is a great example, don't have perfect tyres for the racing, and no refuelling, and drivers will overtake. The drivers will always moan about it being faster, it's one of the things that effects what they were born to do, to go around that track as fast as possible.

[komninosm]

Thanks Ringo.

No thanks. Racing great without it and pit stops much more exciting now.

Non sequitur...
Not the first one in this thread either
Not the last one probably either

Myuur, the point is not that cars are slower, but that they go into safe mode far too often and we'd rather see them push all the time. It's a speed race, not an endurance marathon (like 24h Le Mans).
Also the overtaking and action is artificial and because of the crazy tires, not because of refuelling ban. You can't prove otherwise.

[Hangaku]

Crazy tires or refuelling?

Well, crazy tires introduces the element of the unknown, which for me is a lot more exciting.

The fact that car weight was announced after qualifying, pretty much told you what the strategy was going to be, and that ruined it.

[Pingguest]

I still think Formula 1 should do without pit stops at all. Let the drivers pass each other on-track and keep pre-scheduled, by a team determined pit stop strategies out of it.

[ESPImperium]

Id like to see refueling back, but done without the pre 2010 ban gubbins. By that i mean allow refueling back, but have 2 guys out there with 20kg NASCAR style refueling cans.

Have one on one side, the other on the other.

And to add a little more spice, fuel stops must be totally seprate to tire stops. Also make fuel stops last, for saftey sakes a minimum time.

Could be done, however, that would mean that Pirelli would have to manufacture even crazier tires, but if there was more life in them with a lighter car, you could see a faster race. However the converse could be said with Perez and his Aus strategy making tires last longer.

If Refueling was to come back, id make it that all cars must use a spec fuel tank, one that holds no more than 100Kg of fuel, but then allow the teams to keep fuel weights secret again.

Again, more strategy. More uncertainty, more random occurance, whitch the teams do not like, but creates more of a fun race for fans to watch.

With some rough estimations, this would make Monza a 5 stopper on average, 3 for tires and twice for fuel. All the others would be 4 stoppers, if the drivers saved enough fuel, only spa would be clear cut as a 4 stopper using my 2009 engine data and 2011 Pirelli stop data as well.

I am, and will always like racing with refueling, but at the moment, i am enjoying it just fine as it is.

[Mr Alcatraz]

Thanks Ringo.

No thanks. Racing great without it and pit stops much more exciting now.

Non sequitur...
Not the first one in this thread either
Not the last one probably either

Myuur, the point is not that cars are slower, but that they go into safe mode far too often and we'd rather see them push all the time. It's a speed race, not an endurance marathon (like 24h Le Mans).
Also the overtaking and action is artificial and because of the crazy tires, not because of refuelling ban. You can't prove otherwise.

Very well stated!

[N12ck]

When refueling was about, drivers didn't try save fuel or anything like that, they drove there hearts out all of the race, which I think made more interesting racing, which meant more battles in the races, as opposed to now which is a driver catches another, other driver saves fuel, waits for DRS, and then gets past and that's it, in the past there was titanic battles as the drivers were driving to the max all of the race, which IMO gave better battles.

what are your opinions on this?