Do you want Refueling back?

[bhall]

Simple system for prevention of this, have a sensor in the refueling connection in the car that puts the car in neutral and puts the brakes on and only releases the car 1 second after the nozzle is pulled clear.

Interesting thought, but if I was a driver, I don't know that I would want anything at all in my car that could actively control its gearbox and brakes. To me, that's just begging for trouble.

[Tim.Wright]

I'm ok with it being away. If you have watched F1 over the last 5-6 years you would see that refuellers were being either injured or subjected to very near misses at a ridiculous rate. The most dangerous situation which often occured was the car driving off with the hose still attached. It is only a matter of time before someone receives the flailing dry coupling to the head as the car drives off.

I'm all for "racing is dangerous" etc, but it seems stupid that the refuellers had a more dangerous job than the drivers...

Additionally, Ive always argued the racing suffered. People would hold position on track knowing they have more options in the strategy to overtake in the pits.

And finally, with the IC engine being slowly superseded, refuelling will also become obsolete. It does not make sense politically to drag it back into the spotlight as a central part of the race.

I say, give the cars a minimum tank capacity, mandate they are full at the start of the race, and forget about anything fuel related during the race. This will also do away with the fuel saving modes people are occasionally having to run.

The tyres are giving us good enough racing as it is

Tim

[Scorpaguy]

Yes - and limit the tank size....drastically. Let the teams pic any tire compond they want...no mandate of silly tire changes that just give us a new color and slower car. I like the P-rubber, but does this really advance motorsport tech.? Mandating refueling with small tanks will at least get them trying to improve fuel efficiency.

[ringo]

REFUELING IS SAFE!!

This whole refueling is dangerous arguement is a farce; a fairy tale.

A tyre change is more dangeous and so is a race start.

There is no "matter of time till" so and so. It never happened. This is just fear mongering.

It's a matter of time till a marshal gets hit, Charlie whiting's tower falls over, a drivers comes out of a beached car and gets hit by another car, a terrorist attack happens at a race, Bernie ecclestone can't reach the toilet in time and pass his urine on the pit wall. Come on guys, anything is possible, but statistics show refueling in the last decade or more is much safer than a tyre change or a flying tyre and i think this can be said for all forms of motorsport.


Safety was the least when it came to banning refueling.

[strad]

I don't care about safety...I just don't want it.

[Tim.Wright]

REFUELING IS SAFE!!

This whole refueling is dangerous arguement is a farce; a fairy tale.

I dont know how you can say that when there were more injured refuelling mechanics than drivers in he last 10 years.

Anyway, if you read and understand my point you will see there is no "single" reason to keep refuelling out but many small ones. i.e.
Quality of racing
Safety
Politcal relevance

I have yet to see a single good reason (from the point of view of maintaining the quality of the racing series) to bring it back.

Tim

[Giblet]

Why is Kimi Raikonnen on fire and had his race ruined? Because refueling.

He wasn't hurt, but in the last 5 years, there seemed to be an inordinately large amount of fuel hoses being dragged down the pitlane.

To me it is merely a matter of time until a freak accident, a previously out of context incident that seriously injures someone in the most terrifying way possible, burning. Since the chance of someone getting burned is not zero, probability says it will eventually happen.

I find the potential tragedy to outweigh the benefit. Refueling to me was processional racing and pitlane strategy passes. How refueling made the racing is a subjective matter of opinion.

The odds of a person being seriously hurt is now less overall in the sport.

[Tim.Wright]

The other scary thing about the Raikonnen incident is that the coupling to the rig was broken and open and the one on the vehicle was still engaged. This means there was an open path right to the fuel tank if the flame front had made it into the hose.

Tim

[ESPImperium]

Simple system for prevention of this, have a sensor in the refueling connection in the car that puts the car in neutral and puts the brakes on and only releases the car 1 second after the nozzle is pulled clear.

Interesting thought, but if I was a driver, I don't know that I would want anything at all in my car that could actively control its gearbox and brakes. To me, that's just begging for trouble.

Im led to belive that DTM have a simmilar set up but to stop their cars leaving the pits without a wheel propperly attached with the correct ammount of torque applied to them. So the system does work.

[ringo]

Why is Kimi Raikonnen on fire and had his race ruined? Because refueling.

He wasn't hurt, but in the last 5 years, there seemed to be an inordinately large amount of fuel hoses being dragged down the pitlane.

To me it is merely a matter of time until a freak accident, a previously out of context incident that seriously injures someone in the most terrifying way possible, burning. Since the chance of someone getting burned is not zero, probability says it will eventually happen.

I find the potential tragedy to outweigh the benefit. Refueling to me was processional racing and pitlane strategy passes. How refueling made the racing is a subjective matter of opinion.

The odds of a person being seriously hurt is now less overall in the sport.

Ahh!! Kimi is wearing fire proof clothing, like all the mechanics in the pits. He wasn't hurt and everyone was safe.

How about this for safefy:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgKDLDOsHgI[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvhxlJe_sk4[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HVxVcJH ... re=related[/youtube]
Imagine what could have been? Much worse than refueling.
Should we ban wheel changes as well?

The odd a person being hurt has increased. There is more risk involved in changing wheels in 3.5s. Loose wheels and poorly fitted wheels are always dangerous.

There are more dangerous aspects of the sport that are "a matter of time".

As it is strategy wise, mathemically refueling has more strategy. It isn't even debatable; cause it's just plain facts.

The pitlane passes have been just as numerous, and even more rewarding than the refueling days. 2010 was known for it just as much as 2009. In fact put DRS and KERS together for refueling and you have a much better formula than what we have now.

[ringo]

The other scary thing about the Raikonnen incident is that the coupling to the rig was broken and open and the one on the vehicle was still engaged. This means there was an open path right to the fuel tank if the flame front had made it into the hose.

Tim

It would not explode. Not enough air available pass the coupling. I doubt it was still open when the hose broke. Those things may be presure sensitive.

[Giblet]

Ringo,

I'm all up for a good discussion, but please stop deflecting away from the core issue, "refueling".

Whether we have refueling or not has no bearing on decisions with tires, or any other safety issue.

It is a separate issue on its own, and needs to be discussed as such. Racing is dangerous, but what we do to make it less dangerous is what matters.

We know that a wheel hit Senna in the head and the suspension arm punctured his helmet. What we don't know is how many drivers are still alive because of the tethers, and never will. Kimi after his flatspot when driving for Mclaren had a wheel come inches from taking his head off. He might have not had the chance to get caught on fire like he did.

Its great that Kimi and his crew wear fire proof clothing. Guess what, 10 feet away are the pit walls, and the crews on them. They are wearing runners and t-shirts. Nomex does not protect you from asphyxiation, or getting struck with a fuel hose attached to a car.

You talk about every angle being covered, and refueling being safe. We have seen it is not completely safe, and there is danger involved. Ignoring the danger is irresponsible.

Its OK to say "I still prefer refueling even if it is not 100% safe", because it simply is not, and arguing it is safe is factually wrong and a logical dead end that can not be steered false by videos of wheels flying off.

Also, your Alonso video shows an ING car. So his wheel came off when they did have refueling.

I do agree that there was more strategies involved, more strategies to ensure boring processional racing.

[munudeges]

In fact put DRS and KERS together for refueling and you have a much better formula than what we have now.

Errrr, no. The experience we have with refuelling was that it was simply used to avoid any overtaking on the track via short-filling and so forth. Refuelling avoided overtaking, it didn't promote it.

[strad]

Refuelling avoided overtaking, it didn't promote it

=D> =D> =D>

[Tim.Wright]

The other scary thing about the Raikonnen incident is that the coupling to the rig was broken and open and the one on the vehicle was still engaged. This means there was an open path right to the fuel tank if the flame front had made it into the hose.

Tim

It would not explode. Not enough air available pass the coupling. I doubt it was still open when the hose broke. Those things may be presure sensitive.

I give up...