D.C. 'banning refuelling would improve the racing'

[dave kumar]

interesting input from DC

David Coulthard has voiced doubts that new regulations due to come into force in 2009 will have the intended effect of spicing up the racing....

“It’s ironic that refuelling was introduced to spice up the spectacle, yet it has probably had the opposite effect,” he wrote.

“There’s no question in my mind that banning refuelling would create more lap time variation and improve the racing.”

...With DC's input we are looking at a new can of worms. We havn't heard about this old dilemma for a long time in public debate but the issue is very valid and deserves consideration.

Present refuelling rules demotivate what all spectators want to see. real on track racing! the clever teams and drivers work out a race strategy around refuelling which requires some fast laps for 10% of the race and a snore during the other 90%. do we really want that? probably not!

In my view we have a massive safety problem with refueling since it was introduced. nearly every year we have seen accidents with the refueling kit. pit fires, flash fires, run over refuelling men, torn off refulling hoses. on average it happens every year.

so why don't we look into DC's proposal here in greater detail? it could be well worth it!

Hope you don't mind WhiteBlue but I have used your interesting comments from the post on tyre warmers to start a new thread. Cheeky I know but I'm really busy at work but I think there is a good debate to be had.

The question can be summarised as follows:
Do we think that banning mid race refuelling will create more variation in laptimes - and thus better racing?

This is what DC is suggesting but at any given time in the race I would think that without refuelling, cars would all be on similar fuel loads and thus be more closely matched in lap times than if they were on different fuel strategies.

Is there a case as WhiteBlue suggests for removing mid race refuelling because race strategy is all about good in laps and out laps around the refuelling stop. Or does it break up a procession from pole to finishing line.

Thinking back to the days before refuelling, a driver could nurse a car all the way from start to finish on the same set of tyres and defend his position against much faster cars on fresher tyres. I'm thinking of Senna fending off Mansell to win at Monaco many years ago (might have been the other way round but heck it was an exciting last few laps of the race). Monaco is of course an exceptional track. But unless the 2009 regs allow cars to follow more closely, drivers can still defend a lead despite a large deficit in car performance.

So do we think it is time to end the sprint miniraces of the current system? Reward drivers who can take care of their tyres and defend their position? Or is this the old boring F1 that we were trying to get rid off in the first place?

[roost89]

From what I've heard, I'm not old enough to remember the days of Senna v Mansell and no refuelling, The racing was much closer and far more exciting. I would agree with DC here. There would be more driver control, they'd only be able to push at a certain point in the race. If the leader was burning off too much fuel and flying off in to the lead then the car might run out of fuel, giving the lead over. It would add another aspect to the racing.

What would they do about tyres? Would we return to 1 set per race? or keep the "at least 1 change"?

What if there was a racing incident and the cars were stuck behind a safety car? Would being stuck behind the safety car be taken into account by the car/driver or by the race officials (i.e. shortening race distance)?

[bettonracing]

As long as the cars are mandated to carry more than enough fuel to complete the race at full tilt boogie. I'd rather see fast in and out laps than slow mundane fuel-conservation laps.


Although I'm mostly in agreement (of no refueling), it only takes a few seconds on Youtube (fatal F1 crashes) to remind me why I'm not a big supporter of the inevitably larger fuel cells with more fuel onboard... DC must have alot of faith in modern technology (fuel cell protection) and marshalls...

Regards,

H. Kurt Betton

[WhiteBlue]

I think there would be a natural order how things could work out. First the aero/mechanical grip issues must be fixed consistently. making an assumption about this isn't good enough to gamble a major rule change on it. If Rory Byrne, Pat Symmonds and Paddy Lowe screwed up and got the aero restrictions wrong you could still have the turbulence to deal with. In that case abolishing refueling would probably lead to more collisions and accidents.

Next you need 15-18 months time before the season starts to make the decision so that all teams can get their pre development groups set up with the right concept. If you catch the teams that run 2 or 3 design groups with halve the spec nailed you will be fighting an uphill battle. This leads to the 2011 season before things could really be smoothly introduced.

all things going smooth 2011 F1 could be putting the hammer down on the drivers. No more excuses for lead changes in the pit lane. A big unknown would be the tyre question. the tyres would have to be marginal for the race to run with one set. perhaps one should keep two specs and ask the drivers to have both. a tyre stop would not be such a big incentive to pass in the pits as 2-3 fuel stops.

what did I forget?

[WhiteBlue]

As long as the cars are mandated to carry more than enough fuel to complete the race at full tilt boogie. I'd rather see fast in and out laps than slow mundane fuel-conservation laps.


Although I'm mostly in agreement (of no refueling), it only takes a few seconds on Youtube (fatal F1 crashes) to remind me why I'm not a big supporter of the inevitably larger fuel cells with more fuel onboard... DC must have alot of faith in modern technology (fuel cell protection) and marshalls...

Regards,

H. Kurt Betton

why would anyone mandate the amount of fuel to carry? that would defeat the objective. the teams saving most fuel by their technology (KERS,HERS) should have an advantage.

[roost89]

As long as the cars are mandated to carry more than enough fuel to complete the race at full tilt boogie. I'd rather see fast in and out laps than slow mundane fuel-conservation laps.


Although I'm mostly in agreement (of no refueling), it only takes a few seconds on Youtube (fatal F1 crashes) to remind me why I'm not a big supporter of the inevitably larger fuel cells with more fuel onboard... DC must have alot of faith in modern technology (fuel cell protection) and marshalls...

Regards,

H. Kurt Betton

why would anyone mandate the amount of fuel to carry? that would defeat the objective. the teams saving most fuel by their technology (KERS,HERS) should have an advantage.

I'm guessing that they'd have a maximum fuel volume that, if you were running on fuel alone, would only allow you to race 80% of the race. The other 20% would be run on from the saved energy.
Penalties of constructor points for running out of fuel.

[Belatti]

This is a very interesting topic to discuss.

The safety issue es 100% true, there where only 2 big fires (Verstappen and Irvine) but a lot of accidents.

Then, I agree on this:

Present refuelling rules demotivate what all spectators want to see. real on track racing! the clever teams and drivers work out a race strategy around refuelling which requires some fast laps for 10% of the race and a snore during the other 90%.

So, Do I think that banning mid race refuelling will create more variation in laptimes - and thus better racing?
Yes I do.

There will be cars that are well balanced with full tank and then unbalanced with empty, and viceversa. Drivers will have to adapt to diferent car conditions (like in 2005) so the end of the races could be more unpredictable.
Increasing the variation of car condition equals increasing the variation of laptimes and thus more odd situations may occur.

However, that doesn´t implies that teams will use 1 stop strategies.

Other thing to consider is that a fast car at the front may dissapear. You won´t have the chance to play with strategy in order to cut off 1 pitstop and try to make it loose time behind you. Anyway, I think that that doesn´t happen nowadays.

Any additional thoughts?

[WhiteBlue]

Actually I think that the present rules aren't so bad in terms of keeping the field pretty close and having three top teams and 6 drivers in the running for the championship. I believe it is mainly a consequence of having the control tyres. I wish they would get rid of race fuel qualifying though. and make any kind of regenerative effort legal.

[Ogami musashi]

In order to have a better view of the "spectacle vs racing" problem in F1 (and motorsport in general) i've decided to watch the most possible races from the start of F1.

Currently i'm focusing on 81-83 era while having seen some 84,89 races.

I have to say also that i just watched nurburgring 99 because this is important is my points.


The Refueling is supposed to bring additional strategy to the race by allowing teams having not so strong on race pace cars to rush on light fuel and make fast refuels or inversely having a good race pace on heavy fuel and then making only one pitstop to catch up with faster cars.

But until now all i saw was that the refueling prevented to actually catch up or stay in front except when two cars were closely matched in performance (usually team mates).

The first point i discovered was that during races were no refueling was allowed, at the start, the leader go away with 8-9 seconds gap. when i first saw one of those races i thought "it is over"...but the follower slowly gained on the leader and then the maths were all done, because no refueling was allowed, the follower had literally the whole race (65 lap average) to catch the leader.
Just 0,2 seconds a lap is sufficient to catch him.

But when in some races the refuel was allowed (because tanks were not big enough to cover the whole distance) systematically this process was cut off when the leader and follower refueled, and even often the follower ended up with more gap.

So i searched why, because mathematically if you pit around the same pit time, around the same lap,you stay with the same gap.

The reasons i found, and the most obvious one is that the differences in pit stops is never down to tenths or hundredths but to whole seconds.
So the follower's only chances to pass the guy are that he have a neat pit stop or that he pits several laps after the leader (gaining lap time).

That makes the challenge switch from the planned one, originally pit stops are there to introduce racing strategies but because differencies in pit times can be so huge, this now puts the whole pressure on the pit stop itself!

Transitioning to when only tire stops were allowed, there, the racing strategy was present. Because the tyre stops introduced less time differences so the driver who pit had time to regain his position. and if two guy stopped for tyres the differencies in times were not so huge (this time down to tenths).

The other thing is that refueling reset everything, you change tyres, you get back the fuel, so you in fact recover the starting conditions in which except for mechanical failures or driver fatigue will end in the same lead from the same driver.

So all in one, as of now, while i was for refueling i'm now opposed to that BUT as posted before, we need to cure the following problem first, because if introduced this year for example this would give even more boring races.

Because a pit stop can prevent the follower to regain its time but it can also help him overtaking if his pit stop is for one reason or the another better than the one he's chasing, the infamous "pit stops overtakes".

I'm not completly against i'd say..maybe...we should allow one refuel for some certain races but more generally ban them for the most of the rest.

Tyres changes should be kept however, As of now, because of pit stops, the tyres conditions doesn't change that much, but over a full race distance the tyre wear is leading to lap time differences.

especially when tyres represent a major part of the grip like next year's slicks tyres.

This is not my definite opinion though as i said in the begining, i just saw 99 nurburgring and that was the best race i saw so far, because of rain, pit stop tragedies and...actual racing! (cars did not have problems to get close to each others and we were already on grooved!).

Need far more time to make up my mind.

That being said, 94 till 97 seasons just give me suicide feelings, but this is for many reasons i need to discover, for example the fact than in 94 the cars followed each other...but did not overtake much! (is there any drag? any problem...curious).

[Ogami musashi]

Actually I think that the present rules aren't so bad in terms of keeping the field pretty close and having three top teams and 6 drivers in the running for the championship. I believe it is mainly a consequence of having the control tyres. I wish they would get rid of race fuel qualifying though. and make any kind of regenerative effort legal.

I think you're 50% right, control tyre did effectively level the field but indirectly .
Because of control tyre, and frozen engines, all is down to aerodynamics, but aerodynamics themselves now only permit one or to tenths of advantages so that why the field is close.

While this is cool, this is sad also, engines and tyre should be like aerodynamics freer.

Hopefully, next year powertrain will start a new free curve with KERS, Aerodynamics will shift towards drag reduction, and tyres will indirectly progress since there's a challenge in warming and offering very high level of grip.

But i'd like to see tyre's war again (but controlled a bit), or letting teams ask bridgestone to built custom tyres (but with the same compounds ).

[WhiteBlue]

It would be so much better if they simply let the teams do whatever they like in terms of regeneration. That would replace engine development neatly.

[bettonracing]

why would anyone mandate the amount of fuel to carry? that would defeat the objective. the teams saving most fuel by their technology (KERS,HERS) should have an advantage.

The fuel mandate would be to eliminate slow laps for fuel conservation (See IRL). In a 60 to 70 lap race, the driver should not be forced to slow to conserve fuel. They should be WOT (or damn near to it) all race (give and take a bit for tire wear).

It would be so much better if they simply let the teams do whatever they like in terms of regeneration. That would replace engine development neatly.

Putting the advantage in the hands of the KERS/HERS design teams approaches a hybrid league and puts the majority of the power back in the hands of the engineers instead of the drivers (no pun intended). This could lead to worse wheel to wheel racing than we have now.

Regards,

H. Kurt Betton

[meves]

It would be so much better if they simply let the teams do whatever they like in terms of regeneration. That would replace engine development neatly.

It is quite likely that regenerative systems will be heavier than the equivalent fuel in which case it wouldn't work. They would be better off restricting the fuel which would force more developement of the regenerative systems.

Back to the story, as long as they still have tyre stops I'm not sure it makes that much difference if you have to add fuel in or not. Ok the stops are longer and their are more potential failure points but it's more often wheel issues that cause delays in the pits.

I would much prefer to see them have the option. If your car works better with low fuel then you can stop but if it work better with high fuel then go for no stops but be slower, the choice is yours. As long as the racing is good I'm a happy man.

[WhiteBlue]

why would anyone mandate the amount of fuel to carry? that would defeat the objective. the teams saving most fuel by their technology (KERS,HERS) should have an advantage.

The fuel mandate would be to eliminate slow laps for fuel conservation (See IRL). In a 60 to 70 lap race, the driver should not be forced to slow to conserve fuel. They should be WOT (or damn near to it) all race (give and take a bit for tire wear). ...

but IRL has no refuelling ban!

[WhiteBlue]

Back to the story, as long as they still have tyre stops I'm not sure it makes that much difference if you have to add fuel in or not.

tyre stops are consistent in time and you cannot manipulate as with different fuel loads to get you ahead. in a two stopper you can have as much as 5 s difference between teams mates on different racing strategies. with tyre stops you get perhaps a couple of tenth difference.