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

[bettonracing]

but IRL has no refuelling ban!

The reference to IRL is about the slow fuel conservation laps. Not the refueling strategy. A different kind of racing that requires different strategies (than F1) but their result is that they consistently have drivers driving slow to conserve fuel.

Regards,

H. Kurt Betton

[WhiteBlue]

Hi Kurt,

if you know you have just the fuel that you start with what is the point of conserving fuel. you cannot avoid a refuelling stop and that eliminates the going slow that you criticise in IRL?? or am I making a logical mistake here?

[Conceptual]

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.

Im all for seeing the reintroduction of a slick version of the 2005 spec Bridgestones. Those tyres worked pretty well, and since graining was the #1 issue with them and that is greatly reduced with slicks, I think the folks at Bridgestone may have a solution.

No warmers, no tyre changes... No fuel... No stops OMG! ON TRACK PASSING COMES BACK!

Chris

[bettonracing]

Hi Kurt,

if you know you have just the fuel that you start with what is the point of conserving fuel. you cannot avoid a refuelling stop and that eliminates the going slow that you criticise in IRL?? or am I making a logical mistake here?

If I understand You correctly, You're basically asking why would IRL drivers have the need to drive slow knowing that they'll still have to pit the same number of times per race.

If this is Your question, based on Your other posts, I assume You understand the pitfalls and advantages of low and high fuel loads. The problem comes in with the yellow flags and traffic. Yellow flags can change a 3 stop strategy into a 2 stopper thatbarely makes it to the finish. Someone running low on fuel may now have just enough fuel to complete the race, and just may take the risk to do so, at a usually slower pace to ensure they make it to the finish.

This was the case with Helio Castroneves in Danica's famous Japan win. She ran slower laps in the middle of the race to conserve fuel and Helio had to run his slow laps towards the end of the race as he was running up front with the quicker guys. With her superior (& luckier) fuel strategy, she easily passed him as he slowed drastically in the last few laps (hardly wheel to wheel racing). He wisely slowed and accepted a lower position (2nd?) as opposed to running out of fuel trying to keep the pace for the win. A good number of IRL races are won using fuel strategy instead of wheel to wheel racing.

Another situation where yellow flags ruined a planned fuel strategy happened in Australia where the yellow flag closed the pits and (supposedly) almost caught Kimi out with fumes in the tank. He didn't seem to be driving as if he was conserving fuel the next lap but that may be because F1 teams (or Ferrari?) leave another lap or more when doing their expected fuel stops.

Regards,

H. Kurt Betton

[Rob W]

No warmers, no tyre changes... No fuel... No stops OMG! ON TRACK PASSING COMES BACK!

True. I think they need to consider a couple of things which make comparing today to the early 90s or late 80s. Firstly, aero is light-years ahead of where it was even in 1999 - so much so that increases in on-track overtakings because of it are possibly being overestimated. We've seen measures to slow cars down previously (E.g. the grooves, twice!) in aid of a number of things but which were also touted to be improvements in racing and they didn't really eventuate. Likewise, less powerful engines should have improved the situation but, again, it didn't really happen. In most cases because aero was running ahead at a more significant pace.

Also, the tires... The grooved tired today have considerably more grip than slicks from the 90s. I am against the idea of Bridgestone intentionally making harder tires to reduce grip for the purpose of increasing overtaking. There is too much leeway for manufacturing error or getting the compound slightly wrong and suddenly the cars are super-fast (or slow). Also, it seems to go against the notion of aiming for excellence. F1 needs consistency which I partly believe only comes with having multiple suppliers (keeping each other honest).

I'd prefer cars be slowed down/made easier to follow via non-technology areas such as aero (by that I mean, they're not moving/mechanical parts). They're simpler for the FIA to keep track of for a start and easier for them to tweak season to season - moreso than engines and electronic aids.. E.g. A simple: 'all front wings are required to have an extra 1.5cm clearance for each of the next three seasons'-type thing is fairer to all teams in development/planning terms and would probably achieve more than technical steps like engine freezes or banning refueling etc.

R

[WhiteBlue]

Hi Kurt,

if you know you have just the fuel that you start with what is the point of conserving fuel. you cannot avoid a refuelling stop and that eliminates the going slow that you criticise in IRL?? or am I making a logical mistake here?

If I understand You correctly, You're basically asking why would IRL drivers have the need to drive slow knowing that they'll still have to pit the same number of times per race.

If this is Your question, based on Your other posts, I assume You understand the pitfalls and advantages of low and high fuel loads. The problem comes in with the yellow flags and traffic. Yellow flags can change a 3 stop strategy into a 2 stopper thatbarely makes it to the finish. Someone running low on fuel may now have just enough fuel to complete the race, and just may take the risk to do so, at a usually slower pace to ensure they make it to the finish.

This was the case with Helio Castroneves in Danica's famous Japan win. She ran slower laps in the middle of the race to conserve fuel and Helio had to run his slow laps towards the end of the race as he was running up front with the quicker guys. With her superior (& luckier) fuel strategy, she easily passed him as he slowed drastically in the last few laps (hardly wheel to wheel racing). He wisely slowed and accepted a lower position (2nd?) as opposed to running out of fuel trying to keep the pace for the win. A good number of IRL races are won using fuel strategy instead of wheel to wheel racing.

Another situation where yellow flags ruined a planned fuel strategy happened in Australia where the yellow flag closed the pits and (supposedly) almost caught Kimi out with fumes in the tank. He didn't seem to be driving as if he was conserving fuel the next lap but that may be because F1 teams (or Ferrari?) leave another lap or more when doing their expected fuel stops.

Regards,

H. Kurt Betton

If refuelling is banned they MUST TAKE THE FUEL FOR THE WHOLE RACE!!!
If a safety car comes out the fuel requirement goes down!!!!!! There would not be a point to save fuel. the race distance is fixed.

[mike]

i hav 2 agree that no refuelling and no tyre changes will help with the racing, the problem with the current system is that fast cars that qualified at the front hav light fuel and run good pace and the cars at the back hav more fuel and if a fast car quailfied badly it will can not overtake since it heavy and the gap between the cars in front is made bigger than the cars at the back; thats why we usually seen front runing cars build up a gap big enough for their pit stop.
the other effect of no pit stop is that the car and the driver is more settled during the race and are more focus at driving, which will lead 2 better racing
i also believe that a fix fuel load will also level the field quiet abit since every1 is on the same (1 race) tyres and fuel level the pace difference on grip level will be reduced e.g a heavy ferrari runs closer to a heavy force india than a lighter ferrari vs lighter force india
since F= ma when the mass is greater the acceleration will be smaller and hence the difference will be reduced and thus level the whole field once again.

[Carlos]

This might help clarify Patrick's Indycar victory fuel strategy. The cars use ethanol and get 5>6 miles per gallon and have a single fuel cell that holds 22 gallons. Accordingly you needed 2 stops for the distance. On the last 10 laps the leaders ahead of Castroneves/Patrick had to come into the pits for a splash and dash. Castroneves had enough fuel to finish if he slowed. Patrick had driven very smoothly conserving fuel on her last stint and had enough fuel onboard to pass him and win by several seconds.

Or did I misunderstand something in the thread debate?

[bettonracing]

If refuelling is banned they MUST TAKE THE FUEL FOR THE WHOLE RACE!!!
If a safety car comes out the fuel requirement goes down!!!!!! There would not be a point to save fuel. the race distance is fixed.

Firstly, fuel for the whole race can be vastly different than fuel for the whole race at WOT. Car A can achieve maximum lap times for 80% of the race and drive slow fuel conservation laps for the remainder of the race. Car B can run at full throttle the entire race and finish with ~0 fuel left in the tank. Car C can run the entire race at full throttle and finish the race with 3 litres of fuel remaining in the tank. All 3 cars started the race with "FUEL FOR THE WHOLE RACE!!!" and all 3 cars are not immune to situations that could reuire conservation laps (although admittedly car C has the least chance of this happening). It's quite possible that either car A or car B has the optimum fuel strategy for the race (even ignoring KERS & yellow flags). My initial post alluded to a mandatory car B or C situation.

Secondly, the nature of racing will result in KERS being used mostly as a power adder, as opposed to a power alternative. One could argue increased fuel consumption (due to increased rpms), others could argue decreased fuel consumption (decreased engine load). Without the mandated (full race @ WOT) fuel load, teams will push the boundaries of minimum fuel loads for the required travel distance, including maximum use of KERS as a power adder in their calculations (and evaluating the car A vs car B situations...). In pushing these boundaries, You will inevitably end up with scenarios that require increased fuel consumption, resulting in the need to occassionally run conservation laps.

Just to make sure we're clear: I'm [mostly] against pit stops. I just think there needs to be a required amount of fuel for all cars, the amount allowing the car with the worst fuel mileage to complete the whole race at its minimum lap times.

Regards,

H. Kurt Betton

[WhiteBlue]

I cannot remember that lack of racing for fuel saving has ever been an issue before refueling. I would have thought that the main motivation to run fuel conserving slow is avoiding a splash and dash stop. If that stop isn't legal the fuel conserving makes no sense in the first place.

I also cannot remember that there was ever a requirement to carry a mandatory minimum fuel weight. Competitors always had to make sure they carry enough fuel. occasionally people have run out due to miscalculations. I remember Jean Alesi but that was in a race where refuelling was allowed.

Racers want to cross the chekered flag first. the only time it makes sense to go slow is when too agressive driving destroys the tyres. otherwise I see no reason drivers will hold back from pace their car would be able to achieve.

[Metar]

Another situation where yellow flags ruined a planned fuel strategy happened in Australia where the yellow flag closed the pits and (supposedly) almost caught Kimi out with fumes in the tank. He didn't seem to be driving as if he was conserving fuel the next lap but that may be because F1 teams (or Ferrari?) leave another lap or more when doing their expected fuel stops.

I thought teams had to take into account a slight safety-margin?

Without refuelling, we may see something like this year's Qatar MotoGP race - Casey ran out of fuel coming into the pits after his win.

[bettonracing]

I cannot remember that lack of racing for fuel saving has ever been an issue before refueling. I would have thought that the main motivation to run fuel conserving slow is avoiding a splash and dash stop. If that stop isn't legal the fuel conserving makes no sense in the first place.

You may recall post 1987 regulation change (150litres max for supercharged engines) where the turbocharged cars would cruise around watching their fuel guages until they knew they had enough fuel to blast to the end. Prost comes to mind.

I also cannot remember that there was ever a requirement to carry a mandatory minimum fuel weight. Competitors always had to make sure they carry enough fuel. occasionally people have run out due to miscalculations. I remember Jean Alesi but that was in a race where refuelling was allowed.

You're correct. There never was such a rule. There were also times when a driver could tool around on his 'in-lap' after setting his qualifying time. Admittedly, the qualifying 'slow lap' situation is more of a safety issue whereas the race situation is more of a entertainment issue (or lack thereof). I'm sure You're aware that rules have to constantly be updated as different race strategies and new technologies are introduced.

Racers want to cross the chekered flag first. the only time it makes sense to go slow is when too agressive driving destroys the tyres. otherwise I see no reason drivers will hold back from pace their car would be able to achieve.

Ask Yourself this: Why is it that refueling made sense in the first place? Why would one want to waste 15sec+ per pit stop driving thru and stopping for fuel? Obviously because running lower fuel loads have a dramatic effect on lap times. Considering this, is very possible that running 80% race distance WOT fuel load (using WOT for 70% of the race and using 10% for the remaining conservative laps) will reduce lap times enough to win the race when compared to 100% race distance WOT fuel load.

I thought teams had to take into account a slight safety-margin?

Absolutely. However there may arise situations where they've used that safety margin (think back to Istanbul 2006 when Schumacher had to join the pit line behind Massa). Kimi was lucky to not have used his 'safety margin' in the example given earlier.

Regards,

H. Kurt Betton

[Belatti]

I also cannot remember that there was ever a requirement to carry a mandatory minimum fuel weight.

1.5-litre turbo engines had become universal by 1985, heralding the extinction of the Ford Cosworth DFV. Between 1985 and 1986 Formula One engines would achieve the highest levels of power ever seen in the sport, before serious restrictions and their 'phasing out' began in 1987. The power output of the engines was controlled in racing conditions by means of a strict fuel limit; however in qualifying trim teams were commonly able to increase the boost of their engines for optimum power. This fuel economy was key to successful race strategy in 1985;

1984-1985
1500 cc without and 3000 cc with compressor.
Minimumweight 540 kg, maximumfuelconsumption 220 l/race.
750 hp at 12000 rpm-540 kg (1985 McLaren-TAG MP4/2B Turbo)

1986
1500 cc with compressor. Minimumweight 540 kg, max.fuelcons. 195 l/race
1400 hp at 12000 rpm-540 kg (Williams-Honda FW11 Turbo)

1987-1988
- Min.weight 500 kg (1987), 540 kg (1988). Max.fuelcons. 195 l/race (1987), 155 l/race (1988), max.pressure 4 bar (1987), 2.5 bar (1988).
850 hp at 13000 rpm-540 kg (Williams-Honda FW11 Turbo)
- Or: 3500 cc not compressed. Minimum 500 kg, no fuel-limit.
590 hp at 12000 rpm- 500 kg (Tyrell-Ford 016)

[bettonracing]

Thanks for the correction Belatti (although I think we were writing at the same time).

Regards,

H. Kurt Betton

[WhiteBlue]

yeah, they were max fuel limits but not mandatory min fuel limits. in the context of this thread I wasn't considering different engine and energy budget rules. I was just looking at the proposal of banning refuelling as such. all other rules being equal and better overtaking I believe that the ban could work in some years.