Do you want Refueling back?

[Giblet]

Just because nobody has been burned doesn't mean it can't happen. The dangers of refueling are not just being burned obviously.

As for tire cost increase, as many teams might decide to run 1 stop strategies all year vs others on 2 or 3 the net cost gain could be minimal.

Regardless, I would prefer that other means are found to give teams more strategy calls as per the post topic I don't want refueling returning in it's previous unsafe pit worker injuring incantation.

[komninosm]

Other series can refuel...why cannot the epitome of motorsports refuel. I say make the cells smaller and refuel1. It can be made safe.

It can obviously, it just doesn't anymore.

Reasons it doesn't, cost and safety.

How can it be made safe? Any system can fail.

Hardly. An electronic system (already exists) on the hose that stops the car from moving forward is almost 100% and certainly safer than the slightly increased risk from bigger fuel cells (there is one, trust me, it's just about as minuscule as the risk of refuelling is, when it's properly handled, not to mention the increased errors in tire fitting we have seen already)

[komninosm]

It can obviously, it just doesn't anymore.

Reasons it doesn't, cost and safety.

How can it be made safe? Any system can fail.

When last have we seen someone severly burned in F1?
They all have fire proof gears in the pits.
In fact lack of refueling is more dangerous becuase the pitstop is wheel change dependent. We all saw what happened in Hungary, and that other race with the HRT mechanic.
Refueling was safer, even with the torn hoses and flash fires.

Monza with the HRT guy being run over, and the Hungary mishaps, could have happened with or without refuelling.

Sure, but the point is that without refuelling the risk of tire incidents is increased. Also why does everyone keep forgetting that refuelling can be made safer (easily). No need to ban it, just make it safe. You keep recycling old arguments that fail.

[komninosm]

When last have we seen someone severly burned in F1?
They all have fire proof gears in the pits.
.

That is a poor reason to have refuelling! The fact that nobody has been burnt, seriously or otherwise, for a while, does not mean that it cannot happen. Better to not have the risk in the first place.

Your post is filled with fallacies I'm afraid.
He was not giving that as a reason to bring back refuelling. He was countering an argument of the side that wants refuelling banned (presumed safety).
The fact is that refuelling can be made safe and that nobody will get burnt, and the risks of larger tanks and faster pit-stops (more tire accidents and others) outweigh the minuscule risks of refuelling, done properly.

[komninosm]

I don't think the racing is great this year... but it never has quite been IMO. The championship this year, however, is great.

The racing isn't great this year (partly due to no refuelling), but it has been better before, even great at times. The championship is not great because of the ban, it was just coincidence. Correlation isn't causation.

[mep]

I am against it's return as it just makes a mess of the race -no one knows who's 'winning' till a few laps of the end. It stops from being one race to 3 sprints..

Far too messy and I don't think it improved the racing in fact if a race can be won when the car is at a standstill, it's not really racing at all!

One tank of fuel one set of tyres -Lets go racing!!!!!!!

That post is supposed to be a joke isn't it?
You are complaining that nobody knows who will win until a few laps to the end.
hahahahahah
I think it's a waste of time to argue against such a opinion.

[aral]

When last have we seen someone severly burned in F1?
They all have fire proof gears in the pits.
.

That is a poor reason to have refuelling! The fact that nobody has been burnt, seriously or otherwise, for a while, does not mean that it cannot happen. Better to not have the risk in the first place.

Your post is filled with fallacies I'm afraid.
He was not giving that as a reason to bring back refuelling. He was countering an argument of the side that wants refuelling banned (presumed safety).
The fact is that refuelling can be made safe and that nobody will get burnt, and the risks of larger tanks and faster pit-stops (more tire accidents and others) outweigh the minuscule risks of refuelling, done properly.

No fallicies, I am afraid! Seeing that i am a fire prevention officer, I am just stating facts!

[ringo]

Monza with the HRT guy being run over, and the Hungary mishaps, could have happened with or without refuelling.

no. The pit crew have more time. Instead of 4s, they would have 7 or 9. Fixing a radio cable or cleaning a driver's visor could well be done within the time.
A fuel hose is one thing for the lolipop man to watch compared to 4 wheels.

I'd rather feel a little heat than have my neck broken by a flying wheel.

[ringo]

I must disagree, as I think some of the racing this year has been some of the best ever.

Not really tell me those races there have been many good races in the last years.

I also think that since the cars don't carry enough fuel to finish the race, and everyone has to go into a fuel miser mode at some point that there is enough a differential to produce some great _on track_ racing.

In practise we don't see this because all drivers go into fuel save mode around the same time. Also the effect of being in fuel save mode or not is to small to allow for overtaking on almost equal cars.

I would prefer that all the cars had tanks big enough and were forced to take enough fuel to go the full distance, flat out.

This doesn’t make any difference. If they go full bore all the time or start to save fuel at some time doesn't change anything with the current parade race problem.

1 - Refueling comes back to offer up different strategies, but drivers are coddled and teams get them clear air for a few fast laps, passing someone in the pits (boring).

That's not boring it is very exiting to watch this. Not because a driver tries to overtake the other all the time but because he tries to set one hot lap after the other and the leading driver has to react to this. Every lap you can calculate how the gab has changed and if the plan will work out. This means you have cars on track with totally different strategies, fuel loads and tire wear so a on track overtaking manoeuvre is much easier and therefore likely to take place.
There have been many amazing races in the last years but it demands some brainpower of the fans to really understand what’s going on there.

2 - Fill the cars to the brim, a mandated amount so every driver can go flat out. Unused fuel can be drained off and used next race weekend. No waste. You still get the chance to pass when your leading opponent goes in for tires and you get to do a few hot laps in clean air, then coming in and getting new tires.

Seems like you didn't really got what is going on at the moment. Drivers use the tires they start with as long as possible. A new tyre then is 0,5-1 second faster a lap. As soon as one of them goes to pit everybody has to follow immediately not to lose a position. As the cars usually don't get closer than 1 second on track the drivers can keep their position when they follow in pits immediately. Going for a few hot laps in clean air is therefore impossible because your tyres are a second slower. Then the drivers are on the hard tyres which last easily the rest of the race.

You say the ban of refuelling was made because it was expensive but also you want tyres that last only 15-20 laps.
In fact this is a funny argument. Do you know how many tires they already carry around the world? There are 1632 tires needed for one weekend at the moment. Two fuel rigs per team doesn't count much compared to this. If you compare those fuel rigs to the total amount the teams carry around the world and then this argument of cost saving becomes ridiculous.
They would safe more money if they do more races in Europe where they can go with their trucks.

well said =D>

[myurr]

Ringo / mep - I understand where you guys are coming from, but frankly seeing a car go 0.3 seconds a lap faster than another one for three laps before pitting doesn't excite me particularly. I agree that refuelling adds some tactical elements, but the fact that the racing this year hasn't been much better in the past does not mean that the scrapping of refuelling in and of itself has failed to improve the racing.

The cost argument is a bit of a bogus one - the expense of either solution is relatively small compared to the overall expense of a weekend, to the extent that I'd imagine that no team on the grid would be all that concerned about the cost difference between the two.

For me there have been two problems this year, hopefully both of which will be addressed for next year. The double diffuser has continued to make it more difficult to pass, and the tyres have been far too durable. A one stop strategy should be a borderline risk, not the defacto standard. Indeed with the current tyres I would imagine that even with refuelling we'd see the vast majority of the field run a one stop strategy (a new set of tyres may be worth 0.5 - 1 second a lap, but they then equalise after 5 laps or so, the fuel difference to make up the other 15 - 20 seconds that would have been required for stopping, and by the time you'd caught the car in front you'd have, by definition, the same fuel but wouldn't have track position).

PS. I really dislike the movable rear wings for next year though - I could just about live with a push to pass mechanism that they could use x number of times per race, but some stupid artificial speed up if you get within 1 second of the car in front? Doesn't belong in what is supposed to be a sport.

[gridwalker]

I hate to think about how many times I found myself with my head in my hands during the years of Ferrari domination : there were so many occasions where Schumacher was running in 2nd during an early stint, only to put in a 2 or 3 rapid burst to take the lead during the pit stop phase.

After that happened, the rest of the race was utterly predictable and I just sat through it out of sheer bloody mindedness. If Schumacher had to make all of those passes on track then I would have probably been more of a fan

Personally, I am for making the tyres bigger, stickier and less durable. Give the drivers more mechanical grip, but with a limited lifespan. It would shake up the order a lot more, but give the drivers the ability to make passes when needed. I think that would be a recipe for much more entertainment than refuelling can provide.

[Giblet]

Just because nobody has been burned doesn't mean it can't happen. The dangers of refueling are not just being burned obviously.

As for tire cost increase, as many teams might decide to run 1 stop strategies all year vs others on 2 or 3 the net cost gain could be minimal.

Regardless, I would prefer that other means are found to give teams more strategy calls as per the post topic I don't want refueling returning in it's previous unsafe pit worker injuring incantation.

What if it's in a new not-unsafe (safe ) incarnation [incantation ?)

Any system can and does fail from time to time. How could it be made safer to flow massive amounts of fuel with a human element in the chain?

Diesel?

Besides this argument useless to me as I prefer racing and pit stops with no refueling.

[komninosm]

That is a poor reason to have refuelling! The fact that nobody has been burnt, seriously or otherwise, for a while, does not mean that it cannot happen. Better to not have the risk in the first place.

Your post is filled with fallacies I'm afraid.
He was not giving that as a reason to bring back refuelling. He was countering an argument of the side that wants refuelling banned (presumed safety).
The fact is that refuelling can be made safe and that nobody will get burnt, and the risks of larger tanks and faster pit-stops (more tire accidents and others) outweigh the minuscule risks of refuelling, done properly.

No fallicies, I am afraid! Seeing that i am a fire prevention officer, I am just stating facts!

Heh you just made another one I'm afraid.

[komninosm]

Just because nobody has been burned doesn't mean it can't happen. The dangers of refueling are not just being burned obviously.

As for tire cost increase, as many teams might decide to run 1 stop strategies all year vs others on 2 or 3 the net cost gain could be minimal.

Regardless, I would prefer that other means are found to give teams more strategy calls as per the post topic I don't want refueling returning in it's previous unsafe pit worker injuring incantation.

What if it's in a new not-unsafe (safe ) incarnation [incantation ?)

Any system can and does fail from time to time. How could it be made safer to flow massive amounts of fuel with a human element in the chain?

Diesel?

Besides this argument useless to me as I prefer racing and pit stops with no refueling.

there's this thing called electronics that go on the thingie they put in the car to make the fuel go in the tank that stops the car from moving until it is off. It's already in existence actually.
Sure everything fails, but the risk of safe refuelling is lower than the risk of bigger fuel tanks that are easier to puncture than smaller ones and have more fuel to cause a disaster on track. Not to mention other points people made about ultra fast pit stops partly causing flying wheels and stuff.
But any argument is useless to you since you already admitted you don't listen to reason and you are set in your ways stubbornly.

[Giblet]

[...]

My opinion : I don't think refueling is safe, see no way to make it safe enough at this point in time, and I don't like what it does for the racing. I do not want you to accept my opinions as fact.