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

[bettonracing]

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.

The historical max fuel limits were never refuted. I was proposing the min fuel limit as a solution to the inherent problems (mainly conservative driving) with max fuel limits or hybrid energy sources - which is in context with the banning of refueling.

Regards,

H. Kurt Betton

[WhiteBlue]

ok, I got it.
the hybrid could have similar influence compared to the turbos of old.
my concern with fuel load penalties for the less hybrid teams stem from the fact that they are already protected in their inefficiencies by limitations imposed on teams with rapid hybrid development. a m inimum fuel load would give them ballast that would not be fair.

[CMSMJ1]

The banning of fuel stops is a great idea. I will introduce overtaking.

What we had "back in the day" were 4 grades of Goodyear slick. A = very hard, to D = qually tyre.

You had guys running one set of B compound tyres racing against guys in C compund tyres who had to stop.

Also - try to get a copy of Hungary 1989. The famous Hungaroring where passing is impossible and Nigel Mansell slowly and surely passed everyine from 12th to first by the end of the race. Only tyre stops allowed. Brilliant.

Another option is to mandate the time a car has to spend in the pits - make it that you have to sit 15secs in the box before you can go and limit the amound of crewmembers to attend to the car.

[ESPImperium]

I would be for no refuling, giving the drivers a tank to last them say 62 laps on say a 60 lap race, making them think about if going fast means buring up more fuel and wasting tyres, also making them decide how to balance that with preserving the tyres and lasting longer so you can get ahead using pit stops etc...

Id like to see this:
1.] Ban Refueling
2.] Also, limiting the ammmount of people changing tyres to say 6 or 8, like AGP or Indy/IRL would be a good thing
3.] The Q3 section of qualifying is like a shootout, but with each driver being limited to 2 or 3 consecuitive fast laps in a single 4 or 5 lap (inc out and in lap) stint.
4.] What about the top 10 cars only being limited to only using the hard tyre during the race and behing them they can use the soft to get a better start???

We want racing and not a yawn for up to 2 hours, also seeing drivers come from 11th or below to win or even take a podium is what i like to see.

[Rob W]

Re: some of the IRL posts above. If F1 ever got into the sort of race-craft where driving conservatively to save fuel was a significant issue then F1 would be on the way out the door imo.

Refueling as it is now allows for cars to complete the race driving the highest possible speeds when on-track. Using 'no-refueling' as a means to either slow cars or to get rid of the 'passed in the pit stops' scenarios is missing the point. If refueling pit stops are indeed affecting the cars then shouldn't we really be asking why the tires are so variable in their performance over a stint? Or why there are two compounds on offer and teams so so often getting the wrong ones for the particular time in the race (why not just one? - the same for everyone).

I for one think that tripple the current (at least, if not more) fuel loads required for a no refueling F1 series would significantly hinder the performance and safety of the cars, not to mention the massive problems they'd suffer with tire wear (due to weight) might mean the need for more tire pit stops.. undoing any of the perceived advantages gained by doing away with refueling). Likewise, teams might then figure out how to change the brakes at pit-stops so they can have the best brakes to suit the cars weight in the following stint... Again adding another complexity and pointless task.

Refueling is fine. It adds a bit of excitement imo.

R

[FGD]

Re: some of the IRL posts above. If F1 ever got into the sort of race-craft where driving conservatively to save fuel was a significant issue then F1 would be on the way out the door imo.

Refueling as it is now allows for cars to complete the race driving the highest possible speeds when on-track. Using 'no-refueling' as a means to either slow cars or to get rid of the 'passed in the pit stops' scenarios is missing the point. If refueling pit stops are indeed affecting the cars then shouldn't we really be asking why the tires are so variable in their performance over a stint? Or why there are two compounds on offer and teams so so often getting the wrong ones for the particular time in the race (why not just one? - the same for everyone).

I for one think that tripple the current (at least, if not more) fuel loads required for a no refueling F1 series would significantly hinder the performance and safety of the cars, not to mention the massive problems they'd suffer with tire wear (due to weight) might mean the need for more tire pit stops.. undoing any of the perceived advantages gained by doing away with refueling). Likewise, teams might then figure out how to change the brakes at pit-stops so they can have the best brakes to suit the cars weight in the following stint... Again adding another complexity and pointless task.

Refueling is fine. It adds a bit of excitement imo.

R

I'm completely with Rob W on this topic. Also... Remember the recent interview with Bourdais regarding the bi-polar handling characteristics of a Formula One car? These cars are engineered on computers and in wind tunnels to be aerodynamically stable and efficient. But in tight racing conditions, they become exceptionally difficult to drive.

Tweaking the fuel load rules or available tire compounds may help but there needs to be a fundamental change in design philosophy away from aerodynamic grip towards mechanical grip.

I've been watching and attending F1 races for nearly thirty years and I have to say that todays races are just as exciting as they were thirty years ago. There is meaningful passing in F1 (unlike in IndyCar or Nascar) and the technology, politics and soap opera is still as addictive as ever. Honestly... now that Schumacher has retired and no longer leading a parade... I think F1 is fine as it is.

[WhiteBlue]

The initial theory by DC was that addressing the "insane imbalance" of aero grip and mechanical grip as Bourdais called it will not fix the overtaking problem.
We do not know if this theory will turn out to be right. F1 will have a pass button from 2009 which will mess up the true competitiveness of the cars/drivers by making the recovered braking energy available at different times. we will see many meaningless on track passes that have nothing to do with driving skill but with artificially engineered entertainment passing.

It has been said that refuelling is safer than carrying all the race fuel. That theory can be easily dismissed. Since the introduction of extremely safe fuel bladders in 1989/1992 we did not have a single accident with a car's fuel tank catching fire even when the car was completely destroyed in the accident like Kubica's BMW in Canada last year. it shows how safe the FIA fuel bladder specification are that were introduced in those years.

we had many incident in refuelling involving quantities of fuel being spilled. luckily in the instances the fuel caught fire (at least 6 times) there were mostly small quantities of fuel involved. It bears no thinking what might have happened in the crowded pit lane and garages at old Monaco with unprotected VIP visitors and media personnell if a full quantity of fuel had ever been spilled. We could have easily had 20-30 people injured or dead. We had at least 10 incidents of mismanaged fuel stops where the driver took off while the refuelling wasn't finished. mechanics have been injured and these accident are inherent to the technology and cannot be stopped.

managing tyres with heavy fuel loads is part of a Grand Prix drivers race craft in my view. the masters of older times were shrewd in this art and often build their race victories on such skills. by splitting the Grand Prix effectively into three sprint races the emphasis is put on the computerised planning systems of the teams and not on the driver. this is wrong in my view. by qualifying with race fuel in Q3 we are also robbed of the opportunity to see all drivers go out and drive their cars to the limit of the performance envelope. pole position is worthless if you can manipulate with fuel loads. passes will be similarly worthless if they rely on KERS buttons.

[Rob W]

F1 will have a pass button from 2009 which will mess up the true competitiveness of the cars/drivers..

I agree totally. What a crock. Only a stock series would come up with this idea.

The pass button, like in times when traction control was 'technically' banned, would seem to offer doors for unfair advantage by teams who could figure it out. They can't possibly keep going down the path of having standard, series supplied devices or F1 will end up a joke. They may as well force all tracks to be the same exact layout too to save on testing efforts and tire development. If every track was the same, then wouldn't most testing be pointless?

Not to mention I think racing should be about driving the car faster than the other guy and not who has the most 'overtake' button pushes left up their sleeve.

It has been said that refuelling is safer than carrying all the race fuel. That theory can be easily dismissed. Since the introduction of extremely safe fuel bladders in 1989/1992..

The safety aspect comes from the cars being up to 200kg heavier plus the fact they will shed something like 25% of their total weight over the course of a race making set-up, tire use, suspension, brake wear all safety issues - much moreso than they are now. Not to mention an extra 200kg of weight is a huge extra weight fighting to pull the car off the track at every corner or bump.

R

[WhiteBlue]

Rob W, may I respectfully ask you to have a look at the following fuel weight figures.

F1 engine uses 75 L of fuel per 100 km
race typically starts with fuel for 100 km
additional fuel would be 150 L for another 200 km
specific weight of gasoline is 0.72 kg/L
=> additional weight is 108 kg

those 108 kg is the magnitude of ballast team are currently running.

=> no significant impact on brakes and suspension, just more variation on setup quality. the cars would show a much wider variation of drivability in light and heavy conditions challenging the drivers consideably more than today. would that be a bad thing? I think NO

[Metar]

Extra weight... But even with an extra 200kg worth of fuel (I don't think it's that much - considering the fuel-loads in 1988 were 155l/race, and current cars already carry about a third of their load), the cars still weigh around 700-750kg (including some teams who won't handle KERS' weight-increase). And yet we have endurance-cars racing for hours who weigh over a ton, with lower-specification brakes, tyres, aerodynamics - and yet they're also very safe.

The only change would be for the drivers to find a slightly bigger compromise between a full-fuel setup and an on-fumes qualifying setup. You could have a faster car in qualifying and the last part of the race, or have a stronger car in the first two-thirds of the race. If anything, those variations will lead to more of a spectacle.

Refueling as it is now allows for cars to complete the race driving the highest possible speeds when on-track. Using 'no-refueling' as a means to either slow cars or to get rid of the 'passed in the pit stops' scenarios is missing the point. If refueling pit stops are indeed affecting the cars then shouldn't we really be asking why the tires are so variable in their performance over a stint? Or why there are two compounds on offer and teams so so often getting the wrong ones for the particular time in the race (why not just one? - the same for everyone).

I believe you mis-read the comments left by some regarding under-fueling for the whole distance. I think they meant under-fueling, hence forcing teams to develop KERS systems to compensate as a constantly-available, "second engine" sort of power-source to save fuel - which would both fit in with the FIA's green message, and develop technologies that are road-relevant.

The way KERS is currently going to be implemented is, I agree, completely daft. However, if you look at it as a constant source of extra power, it is a tool that can be used to make the cars actually faster, while also improving their gas-mileage. So yes, teams could fuel, say, 80% of what the gasoline engine needs to complete the distance, and in return, compensate with KERS - and ultimately, be able to attack hard for the whole distance.

[Rob W]

Rob W, may I respectfully ask you to have a look at the following fuel weight figures.

F1 engine uses 75 L of fuel per 100 km
race typically starts with fuel for 100 km
additional fuel would be 150 L for another 200 km
specific weight of gasoline is 0.72 kg/L
=> additional weight is 108 kg

those 108 kg is the magnitude of ballast team are currently running.

=> no significant impact on brakes and suspension, just more variation on setup quality. the cars would show a much wider variation of drivability in light and heavy conditions challenging the drivers consideably more than today. would that be a bad thing? I think NO

I'm not disagreeing with your argument but from memory they often say during races how much fuel has been taken on in KG terms - usually in the region of 60kg... so a three stint race would be something like 180+ kg which is a significant weight in terms of an F1 car.

Moreso, justifying the weight against ballast would make the potential problems worse. The ballast is used to balance cars and bring them up to minimum weight. The cars would still have to have the ballast so they finished the race at the correct weight, except now - with a much heavier car at the beginning of thr race - would be less effective and therefore the tires and breaks would suffer more stress and/or wear... further complicating things. The knock-on effects add up to - why bother? - in my opinion.

Why is the idea a good one? I have yet to hear a reason which doesn't just create more unknowns and questions and add more variables into team's performances.

R

[bettonracing]

Why is the idea a good one? I have yet to hear a reason which doesn't just create more unknowns and questions and add more variables into team's performances.

R

I'm in agreement with some of what You say (I'll save those views for another - more relevant - thread) but I figure I'd nitpick this statement

Assuming everybody is given a minimum (preferrably the exact same amount) fuel load, do You agree that it removes quite a few (dynamic) variables and calculations?

Also one could argue that the initial weight penalty can be offset using other performance parameters (engine power/ tires/ lower minimum weight/ allow more wing/ KERS only works with a half tank of fuel or more/ etc).


Regards,

H. Kurt Betton

[Rob W]

I believe you mis-read the comments left by some regarding under-fueling for the whole distance. I think they meant under-fueling, hence forcing teams to develop KERS systems to compensate as a constantly-available...

Again, to me this is just a ludicrous way of forcing teams to do.. what? Save fuel? Who are they kidding? The FIA seem to love getting out the sledgehammer to tinker with things.

I feel like systems like the KERS may open the door too much for a single team to come up with a completely radical idea which allows them to totally wipe the floor with every other team - totally against the entertainment value of the sport. The effect of such unknown technology areas could make it like ABS braking or traction control - whoever gets it first has an insurmountable advantage over all others.

The stability of rules and complete frank path ahead which mitigates avenues where teams can have some freak technical idea which allows them to beat everyone for two seasons (think of the effects of something like the mass-damper - but many more times as effective) is what the FIA should be aiming for. But, instead they seem to come up with these PR spun ideas to achieve things, the effects of which could often transparently be done other ways - usually at far less cost to teams.

(On the flip-side, if they heavily regulate KERS system's designs then what point will they be at all in terms of car-industry useful development?)

This is the kind of thing which I think diminishes the racing spectacle - not people getting passed during pit stop rounds. The FIA needs to think of that single factor when making changes for the future: Will this change see racing at its truest yet still encourage useful investment by teams? Banning refueling doesn't improve this aspect and I predict KERS will not be particularly successful for F1 as a spectator sport - destined to be put in a heap alongside overtaking boost buttons after a couple of seasons.

They're complicating the crap out of something which isn't really that complex if you think about it in racing/spectator enjoyment terms.

R

[Rob W]

Also one could argue that the initial weight penalty can be offset using other performance parameters (engine power/ tires/ lower minimum weight/ allow more wing/ KERS only works with a half tank of fuel or more/ etc).

Aren't those examples of things which support what I said? Things which will get tweaked, rules bent etc? Teams accusing others of having half a litre more fuel... and confuse the people watching.

Here's a question for (not you specifically) - what happens when a car which is blowing the others away runs out of fuel on the last lap? Oh dear... some people will say: they should have calculated their fuel better and paid the price.

But many people will be at home thinking: F1 has been poked as an entertainment form because the whole race everyone thought he was the fastest car but he actually wasn't because he was running light... and failed to finish at all. The person who ran 4th the whole race actually won but the person who came last had the fastest car. How is that racing?

It complicates it too much from a spectator's perspective imo.

R

[WhiteBlue]

Also one could argue that the initial weight penalty can be offset using other performance parameters (engine power/ tires/ lower minimum weight/ allow more wing/ KERS only works with a half tank of fuel or more/ etc).

Aren't those examples of things which support what I said? Things which will get tweaked, rules bent etc? Teams accusing others of having half a litre more fuel... and confuse the people watching.

Here's a question for (not you specifically) - what happens when a car which is blowing the others away runs out of fuel on the last lap? Oh dear... some people will say: they should have calculated their fuel better and paid the price.

But many people will be at home thinking: F1 has been poked as an entertainment form because the whole race everyone thought he was the fastest car but he actually wasn't because he was running light... and failed to finish at all. The person who ran 4th the whole race actually won but the person who came last had the fastest car. How is that racing?

It complicates it too much from a spectator's perspective imo.

R

teams should be capable to calculate safe fuel loads. and if they arn't you can always have a reserve which will get you through the race but gets you a hefty penalty (say 5 places) in scrutineering. alternatively allow emergency refuel but with additional time penalty in the pit lane. time penalty to achieve similar loss of position in the race.

the ballast issue can be easily fixed by changing the minimum weight.

this issue has actually been taken out of another thread to discuss it away from KERS. I feel that it should be focused back on the refulling ban.