Do you want Refueling back?

[ringo]

As for the tank size problem, a smaller tank is made of less material, and a large shunt directly to it will be more catastrophic. A larger tank is made of more material, has more surface area, and more ability to absorb shock.

A 4 inch square of material has less give than a 6 inch square piece. More area = more flex = less chance of rupture.

You fail at engineering.
I give up. You guys twist everything to suit your failed arguments and refuse to acknowledge even the simplest of facts. It's almost like religious fanaticism.

Please tell my why I am wrong then. The thing is I really don't care if I am wrong, I take the opportunity to learn if that is the case. You seem to care too much, and keep on and on theng et frustrated in the end when people don't bend to your will.

Why do you care so much? Is it pure passion for refueling? A deep seated need to one up anyone who disagrees with you? Do you just like to argue?

This is a discussion, not a contest to see who is right. Explain to me how a larger piece of material has less give then a smaller one? My experince says large = more flex.

I would gladly discuss anything with anyone, but you get too personal, way too fast. You have not been here very long, but I have seen more acidic personal posts from you than anyone else, and we have had some serious acid here before. Telling someone they 'fail at engineering' is not a discussion, it's a childish attack on a stranger. Grow up or stop posting.

The collective knowledge on this board is greater than yours, mine, or anyones on any given topic. Try flowing with that instead of pushing it all away.

The bigger tank is no different than the smaller one.
You can walk up to a gas tank and shoot it, and it wont explode.

There was an episode of myth busters where they were firing riffle shots under a car to hit the gas tank. All it did was puncture holes in it and fuel ran out.
You have to apply a lot of heat and air to get a flame much less an explosion.

One way a bigger tank can be more dangerous though is if it is nearly empty.
A 15 gallon tank with 1 gallon of fuel in it is more dangerous than a 5 gallon tank with 1 gallon of fuel. The bigger tank has more air in it.

As for F1, i think the tanks a bladder bags that have no air in it? So that example may not hold, but otherwise I can't see a 40% smaller tank being riskier.

Flames are easily taken care off. It's explosions that are unsafe. I have never seen a fuel explosion in F1, and if a riffle shot can't do it, it's going to be pretty had to get that to happen.

[ackzsel]

I vote No,

I must say that I like it very much to see that the mechanics working on the tires make such a huge difference now. Of course there was always the risk of a jammed wheel nut, but when everything went okay the length of the pit stop was depending on the amount of fuel that had to be put in.

I'm also in favor of ditching the tire rule, although I don't think Pirelli will like that since all the "tire talk" will then be lost.

[WhiteBlue]

There has to be risk involved for something to be a spectacle. The spectators need to be stimulated, by sound sight and danger. It's a circus afterall.

We will have to disagree on the danger aspect. Personally I lean towards the long time FiA standards when it comes to safety. I know that Americans don't mind higher risks in their motor sports than Europeans. If that makes us pussies in your eyes I don't mind. I'm fully in line with Jackie Stewart in this question. I don't want anybody to have to go through a repeat of 1994 again.

But let me correct you on one thing, the G force says more about the slick tyres than the aero.

It doesn't matter where the cornering speed is generated. The energy goes by the square of the cornering speed and cornering speed increases with G. If you have a wing, tyre or suspension failure at 360 kph in 320R you are not likely to walk away from that. It is hairy enough today with a top speed of 320 if I remember it right.

[Giblet]

That's the point. There has to be risk involved for something to be a spectacle. The spectators need to be stimulated, by sound sight and danger.
It's a circus afterall.
But let me correct you on one thing, the G force says more about the slick tyres than the aero.

There is risk, they are racing cars around a circuit. Despite all the safety we are very lucky to still have Robert Kubica after his Canada shunt. Robert Kubica is lucky to have his feet attached to his body.

Michael Schumacher almost had his head detached from his body this year, again, despite safety measures.

Kimi could be permanently blind right now. Looking at his rally driving, maybe he is

Danger will always be part of the sport, and writing off all fans as idiots who are just waiting for a crash does no justice to the sport and its loyal fans.

We want spectacle, we want racing, and yes, when there is an accident we are glued to the television, but this fan does not require mroe danger to be entertained, and I am sure I am not alone.

[sknguy]

Myself, I'm not much into spectacle. Don't care for that aspect of any sport. I just want brilliant tech, skilled driving and genius strategy. If I want spectacle, I'll watch the Macy's Day parade or something.

I do want the excitement of seeing someone finese their car to the edge. But people shouldn't have to get hurt just for my entertainment. I love seeing drivers hop out of the car and walk away from a shunt. That, to me, is brilliant and marvelous tech. If I'd caught the poll earlier I probably would've voted no to refueling. Because the less you have to handle that @#*% the better.

[ringo]

I didn't say more danger. I said more risk; meaning the perception of danger.
That's the whole concept of speed. Going fast is something that subliminally tells us that something dangerous and risky is taking place.
That's why we like overtaking in F1 so much, it's the fear of it going all wrong that makes it spectacular.
I am not american, but i do live in the new world , and i somewhat like their mindless sports. They are better at marketing sports and drawing crowds, so it would be best F1 take a page out of their book.
The drivers need to be 100% safe, but the illusion of danger and chaos needs to be increased.

A great man once said: "our car doesn't throw up any sparks! We need sparks!"

Do you guys appreciate the gravity of that of revelation?

Something as simple as a spark evokes thoughts of speed, danger, performance, competition, spectacle, wonder.



F1 is nothing without sparks or danger, power or speed. It needs excessiveness.

[Giblet]

I loved the sparks, they are one of the things I remember most when I was first exposed to F1, unfortunately though, those excessive sparks were to keep the cars running absurdly low, and that lowness contributed to Senna's death.

I see where you are coming from with risk vs danger though. Perceived danger doesn't have to mean more danger. Risk and danger do go hand in hand.

[andrew]

...and that lowness contributed to Senna's death.

I thought is was due to him letting his tyre pressure drop so much behind the safety car that his ride height had dropped and then he gunned it after the safety car had gone in and we all know what happened next...

The sparks did look spectacular and were caused by skid plates (titanium I think) but the probem with hitting the ground is that it slows the car slightly which is not preerable to the teams.

[Giblet]

It was exactly that and the two things go hand in hand. If the cars weren't allowed to run so ridiculously low, a few PSI from lost tire heat would not have been fatal.

A modern F1 car will not encounter the same problem when the heat is gone from the tires, just a lack of grip.

[myurr]

The sparks did look spectacular and were caused by skid plates (titanium I think) but the probem with hitting the ground is that it slows the car slightly which is not preerable to the teams.

I don't believe that's the case (the second bit about it not being preferable to the teams) - the FIA mandated the floor be raised and put a big wooden plank underneath the car to police it. All the teams would prefer to run the cars lower than they do for aerodynamic reasons, which would vastly outweigh the cars being slowed down when they bottom out on the straights.

[WhiteBlue]

I wonder how the perception of refueling will change when we get 100 kg/h fuel flow restriction. I think it will compliment the refueling ban nicely. Excessive downforce will be pushed back and we should see more on track passing. So for me they can't start early enough with the new rule.

2011 obviously nothing will change anyway with refueling. 2012 they should still keep the ban and kick of the flow limit with 115 kg/h and unlimited KERS.

[scotty86]

Refuelling did little for me, especially when it got to the stage whereby you knew which car had which fuel load from the media captions, and therefore you knew exactly what strategies everyone was running anyway.

I'd rather have a tyre war and excessively soft tyres back - they are a far bigger unpredictable element than simple fuel loads.

[bergzy]

i have always like refueling in all motor sports. it adds another level of complexity and strategy along with design planning.

i saw fewer pit incidents this season but they were still some very dangerous incidents. in fact, i think hamilton's inside lane drag race with vettel during the chinese(?) gp was very very dangerous.

bring back refueling. it has been always a part of motor sports!

[myurr]

i saw fewer pit incidents this season but they were still some very dangerous incidents. in fact, i think hamilton's inside lane drag race with vettel during the chinese(?) gp was very very dangerous.

I understand what you're getting at with the rest of your post but that 'drag race' was neither unique to this year or a consequence of the ban on refuelling.

[komninosm]

http://openpaddock.net/2010/01/21/indyc ... -for-2010/
Honda Performance Development, HPD, has created a system that prevents the car from shifting out of neutral until the fuel rig clears the car by a specified distance.
[...]

Also drivers like Vettel, Shoemaker, Hamilton all disliked the ban because it limited strategy:
http://www.newsonf1.co.uk/2010/news/Feb ... g_ban.html
http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/extra/8175 ... ling-rules

Look my main point is that the way tires work, it is very difficult to squeeze out enough performance to make anything other than a 1-stop strategy work, without refueling. You have to create artificial tire differences to make it work as is.