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

[Conceptual]

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.

Dude, what series do you watch? That has always been the POINT of the Constructors Championship. Artificially engineered passing due to vehicle performance is what they spend those millions on.

I, for one, believe that with the engine freeze and the introduction of KERS, that if the FIA were to allow AWD and uncap the regenerative capacities of these systems from get-go, that you would see the best racing of all time. And if they get REALLY good, the Spec V8 could easily be put into V4 mode (like last year), and conserve vast amounts of fuel by having the maximum recovery the team designed. And with the reintroduction of the 2005 spec Bridgestone's, but as slicks, you would see 1 stoppers, and possibly NO stoppers. It would immediately double the life of the engine, and even if one bank fails running in 4 cylindar mode, you could always switch over. I think it would make F1 "greener" and the teams could invest a combined $9 Billion dollars over 2 years into the KERS, and the manufacturers could be building them by 2010... FOR US!

Don't knock the systems. It has always been about the car, and then the driver. Alonso this year is current proof.

Chris

[bettonracing]

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.

I wouldn't necessarily say they support Your argument, but the statement wasn't intended to counter Your arguments either. You are correct in that it adds something new for the engineers to learn and adapt to but that's their job. It makes their job easier in that now You don't have to do any dynamic calculations to predict how much fuel to put in (dynamic because of yellow flags and traffic). Things like standard issue tires, lower minimum weight and a standard issue "KERS use sensor" cannot be tweaked. If the fuel delivery is closely monitored (or even delivered) by the FIA, and the minimum fuel everybody can run will go the full race distance + 4laps, there is no issue about teams running 1/2 a litre more than anybody else as any such efforts would be counterproductive.

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?

I see we're in agreement about the result of maximum fuel loads. Even a minimum fuel load that doesn't guarantee full race distance may result in the same effect. My solution (i.e. a minimum fuel load which guarantees full race distance) eliminates this problem. But it won't look 'carbon friendly' or push engineers to make more fuel efficient engines...

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

I do agree it is complicated for the spectators but I don't know if I'd say it complicates it any more than current strategies do. Fast in laps still don't guarantee drivers will pass the person they're trying to beat when coming out of the pits. Spectators still don't know what's happening until they show the shot of the front straight and the pits to show where the two cars are relative to each other. And even then, it's still no guarantee as the guy in the lead after the firt set of pit stops may still be running a lighter fuel load, only to be passed in the 2nd round of pit stops. I must admit it does build anticipation, and is probably a strategy by the FIA to keep people watching or at least to change back occassionally (tv ratings?) but it must be considered that majority of the people prefer wheel to wheel racing. (I personally would prefer something like a couple 10 lap time-attack-format sprints, but I also get excited watching the live timing feed so I know I'm a minority in this case).

Getting back on track, do I think no pit stops will improve the show? Not by itself. If teams are still allowed to choose their own fuel loads it may become an even worse "show". Then again, some people would enjoy seeing the back markers on the podium but my preference is that the finishing order should be fastest package (car & driver) to slowest package. This will require less 'strategic' racing.

Regards,

H. Kurt Betton

[Metar]

Rob, when I'm trying to explain races to outsiders, their first question is, why the hell don't they refuel to the finish? Why does the fuel-load make them so slow?

Banning refueling would make it easier. Every person who ever drove a car knows they run out of fuel sometime, but not everyone realizes that carrying 30 litres of fuel will cost you half a second per lap. They'll understand that he didn't have enough fuel, and paid the price, and others had enough fuel, or drove while conserving enough of it, and were able to come out victorious. Like Danica Patrick.

[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.

Dude, what series do you watch? That has always been the POINT of the Constructors Championship. Artificially engineered passing due to vehicle performance is what they spend those millions on.....
Chris

there is a difference between inherent pace and arbitrary bursts of performance. the regenerated energy should not be restricted to push button release but fed to the shaft as it is disposable. they will have to do that with HERS energy anyway. why not start with it right away. you do need energy management software but it would still be driver controled. in the final stage I expect some 600 hp from the ICE and 300-400 from the regenerative sources. for that kind of power you need an integrated control particularly considering that you would have a minimum of three engine/motors.

[Rob W]

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...

Fair call. But, again, your suggestion adds a seriously non-sportslike penalty after the race has finished which will just turn spectators away. People simply want the car that crosses the finish line first to be the winner - anything which changes that ruins the entertainment value of sport.

Also, emergency refueling wont work - since by the time it's an emergency you wont have enough fuel to make it back to the pits. Fuel levels are calculated. Alternatively, having an emergency tank with 5l in it etc is also another unnecessary complication. Why not just let the teams refuel or not as they wish at each track? It's completely simple, allows flexibility, is obvious to spectators what is happening, easier on the cars, allows them to drive near top speed for a much higher % of the total race...

(not to mention, they're almost certain to be coming in for tires anyway, so why not use the opportunity to ad fuel while they're there?)

R

[Rob W]

Rob, when I'm trying to explain races to outsiders, their first question is, why the hell don't they refuel to the finish? Why does the fuel-load make them so slow?

Banning refueling would make it easier. Every person who ever drove a car knows they run out of fuel sometime, but not everyone realizes that carrying 30 litres...

Ha ha, I'm sort of with you on that. Been in the same position myself. But then again, people who don't grasp and accept that easily aren't good prospect fans for F1 (or motorsport in general I'd guess).

Allowing teams to run full-fuels would be fine by me, but as an option. Banning refueling outright achieves so little and adds so much complexity when teams are begging for stability.

R

[dave kumar]

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...

Fair call. But, again, your suggestion adds a seriously non-sportslike penalty after the race has finished which will just turn spectators away. People simply want the car that crosses the finish line first to be the winner - anything which changes that ruins the entertainment value of sport...

Can I just direct you to this feasibility study that Ciro provided a link to previously. It has many good suggestions including the following on how to make a max fuel limit work without the risk of cars running out of fuel on track or any post race penalties.

We need to encourage improved part load engine efficiency and here a limit on the total fuel available for competition has considerable merit. However the question of warm up laps and the potential hazard of a car running out of fuel must both be addressed...

A reserve fuel system with automatic change-over can easily be provided for warm-up laps and to cover fuel exhaustion. We can introduce a small restriction to the peak fuel flow from the reserve system say to 95% power, thereby providing a built in penalty for excessive fuel consumption, during the race, whilst creating new opportunities for more overtaking.

"A feasibility study into the role Motorsport can play in the development of energy efficient automobiles" (PDF warning: 5 Mb)

-----------------------

Back on topic, there are a lot of changes coming in next year and we have to wait and see if these improve the ability of cars to run close together. Unless this problem is addressed there is little point in reverting to the no-refueling format. This is because unless cars can battle for position on track we need the mid race refuelling to allow teams to leap frog each other by selecting different race strategies.

But although I initially preferred the current format because of the variety of race strategies it allows (thread). I didn't appreciate this point, well made by Belatti.

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...

I think the idea that it will be harder to setup a car that is well balanced on a race distance tank of fuel and on empty, has merit. More variation in car performance over the race distance due to tyre wear and differences in running weight would really test the drivers and should produce more unpredictable finishes. This is an area where F1 could be improved. With the caveat that there will still be occasions where a fast car on pole may lead from start to finish - plus ca change.

The point has already been made in this thread but it bears repeating. Fuel stops provide teams with an easy way to manipulate the position of their car on the track relative to their competitors by short stopping or going long on fuel. Therefore the teams are dictating what happens on track and the drivers follow (more or less). If we went back to no-refuelling then the driver would be in control of his race strategy based on throttle control which affects fuel consumption and on how he looks after his tyres. I for one am in favour of this shift in power.

[myurr]

My belief is that refuelling should be banned as I think that the changing balance in the car will add to the challenge a driver faces and provide periods where different cars and setups work better than others. This can only enhance the racing.

A complimentary idea would be to task Bridgestone with coming up with a variable compound tyre that has a specific linear degradation - softer rubber for quick qualifying laps and a couple of chargers after pitting for tyres in a race, followed by a progressively harder compound that gave a balanced long distance performance.

If correctly managed it could be possible to produce tyres that have close performance on a 0, 1, or even 2 stop strategy. This would allow different drivers to target different strategies based on where they qualify, relative strengths of their car, etc.

Different strategies, plus hopefully easier overtaking, could allow for certain runners to choose to race aggressively, others less so, giving more on track action and overtaking. I'd be interested to know if this is practical and whether those with technical knowledge think it could be achieved, or even if it would help.

[WhiteBlue]

so effectively you advocate the removal of the rule that imposes one batch rubber to all elements of one tyre! This would be a radical departure from known technology and would cost a fortune to develop. are there sure benefits to justify the immense dvelopment cost?

[myurr]

so effectively you advocate the removal of the rule that imposes one batch rubber to all elements of one tyre! This would be a radical departure from known technology and would cost a fortune to develop. are there sure benefits to justify the immense dvelopment cost?

Yup, if it would improve the racing - and I'm not sure either way on that, hence fielding the question - then I would advocate the removal of that rule.

Would the development costs be greater than the switch to slicks in 2009? There would also be the possibility of road relevant technology - such as tyres with a harder compound (maybe even a different colour) as they run out, allowing safe driving to have them replaced, or tyres with mixed compounds across their surface area for improved cornering when the tyre gets leaned on during cornering.

I'm not at all technical beyond being able to program a computer, so would be very interested in any feedback on the technical practicalities.

[roost89]

such as tyres with a harder compound (maybe even a different colour) as they run out, allowing safe driving to have them replaced, or tyres with mixed compounds across their surface area for improved cornering when the tyre gets leaned on during cornering.

I know that they have the technology in MotoGP and World Superbikes. The tyres can consist of 3 compounds of varying 'hardness'. Left side, middle and right side can be different. Michelin (I'm not sure about Bridgestone) have introduced this technology onto some of their road-bike tyres aswell.

So there is no doubt that it's possible and that it has real-world potential aswell. What use they could be in real-world driving I've got no idea.

[WhiteBlue]

I think that the rule was introduced to limit performance in a competitive situation. With a control tyre there may be reasons to revisit this issue. But if it costs tons of money Bridgestone may not want to do it.

[Conceptual]

I think that the rule was introduced to limit performance in a competitive situation. With a control tyre there may be reasons to revisit this issue. But if it costs tons of money Bridgestone may not want to do it.

Then call Michelin and reintroduce the tyre war.

The tyre war in F1 led to incredible improvements in understanding and performance. Cost is a relative thing, and to be perfectly honest, in F1, what is money other than a way of keeping score?

Chris

[WhiteBlue]

I don't think you will ever reach agreement with me on that issue. I regard competitive tyre development as detrimental to the F1 racing that I like. Fortunately the team principals and other decision makers in F1 have come to the same conclusion and have focussed resources towards other engineering technologies. I'm sure all the arguments have been exchanged many times so I refrain from going into details.

[Conceptual]

I don't think you will ever reach agreement with me on that issue. I regard competitive tyre development as detrimental to the F1 racing that I like. Fortunately the team principals and other decision makers in F1 have come to the same conclusion and have focussed resources towards other engineering technologies. I'm sure all the arguments have been exchanged many times so I refrain from going into details.

I, for one, am very thankful that the Tyre War has brought our street machines the Michelin Pilot series as well as the Bridgestone Potenza series of street tyres.

They were about 2 years away from understanding tyre adhesion to the level of molecular velcro.

It would have been nice to have them find the breakthrough to gripping ice. THAT would have made the entire war worthwhile.

Chris