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

[guy_smiley]

I really enjoyed the tyre war, personally. I understand you, whiteblue bmw, when you say it wasn't the type of racing that you like; I'm simply of a different opinion. Just as the teams struggle to find every ounce of performance out of their cars in order gain the upper hand, so did Michelin and Bridgestone in order to help the teams that ran their tyres, and I think that is what F1 is all about. A lot of people think that F1 is slowly becoming a glorified GP2 series, including the drivers. I know we could start another thread about that (if one hasn't already been started ), but I found that, aside from the tyre war being a story in and of itself, the difference in performance from track to track only added to the F1 experience. It would take many words to explain my point, so I'll just share with you all the questions that would arise in my head during this era, and hopefully you'll at least understand my point (you don't have to agree with it )

- If a Bridgestone team is dominant over a couple of races, will the next race have upside-down results because the track favors Michelins? (It's always nice to see new faces on the podium!)

- If a certain track blatantly favors, por ejemplo, Michelins, and they are running in first through fourth positions, what does that say about the front-running Bridgestone car in fifth position? Is that driver much better than the other Bridgestone runners? Or is he simply in a better car?

- On that note, who has the best (overall) car? Has a certain team designed the best car of the entire field barring tyres? Or do they have the best car considering their tyre supplier? Or maybe they really have the best car but they're on the wrong tyre?

- well shite...I had one more but, for my life, I can't remember it!

What I mean is that F1 has come under scrutiny for being very predictable, and having two tyre manufacturers is a great way to get away from that. I was about to delve further into the topic but it's past my bed-time!

Anyway, and as usual, my comments are light-hearted, and thank you for listening!

[myurr]

I think there was one reason that many people, myself included, disliked the tyre war - and that was that it tended to lead to one batch of teams having dominance over the others over the course of a year. The balance of power between the tyre manufacturers may have varied slightly from track to track but overall it was pretty static over the course of a season.

I would welcome the return of the tyre war only if the tyres were interchangeable and teams could opt on a race by race basis which manufacturer they would like to use. To do so would require standardisation of the tyre dimensions so that there would be little to no aero difference.

If anything this would then increase the competition between the manufacturers as each tried to win the custom of each and every team. It would also prevent Indy style debacles.

A final twist that could be considered would be for each manufacturer to bring a single compound to each race, and all teams must use both brands of tyre during the race - replacing the current prime and option with Bridgestone and Michelin, for example. For the teams it'd be little different to their current situation, and for the manufacturers they would be vying for being the tyre of choice, with the other being relegated to the tyre used for the shortest possible stint.

[WhiteBlue]

the argument is a bit OT but from my view the main reason for finishing the tyre war was the tremendous dedication of resources to tyre related development and the frustration to be in the hands of the tyre companies for success. when you do everything right that you can possible do and bust your budget and still loose because your competitor works closer with the tyre guys or your tyre supplier drew the shorter straw it can drive you mad. no big surprise that practically all team principals did not want to continue the russian roulette. from the spectator side it was less predictable, I agree. one should not forget that we lost a lot of teams in that time. that was the downside.

back to the topic. if the 2009 cars introduce more passing this issue should be looked into.

[bettonracing]

All the supporters of banning refueling must admit that Hamilton's 3 stopper did keep You on edge for todays race! (Turkey '08)

Regards,

Kurt

[Metar]

All the supporters of banning refueling must admit that Hamilton's 3 stopper did keep You on edge for todays race! (Turkey '08)

I wondered if someone might mention it. Yes, it kept me on my toes - but it's the first three-stopper in yonks that was actually well done. Hamilton drove brilliantly - I now can stand him a little more.

Raikkonen, on the other hand, showed us just why a refueling-ban is good. He passed Alonso, which was an easy task considering the Ferrari's superiority. And then what? He just waited for ages behind Kubica, floored it once the latter stopped, and came out ahead. Zero interest.

[roost89]

All the supporters of banning refueling must admit that Hamilton's 3 stopper did keep You on edge for todays race! (Turkey '08)

I wondered if someone might mention it. Yes, it kept me on my toes - but it's the first three-stopper in yonks that was actually well done. Hamilton drove brilliantly - I now can stand him a little more.

Raikkonen, on the other hand, showed us just why a refueling-ban is good. He passed Alonso, which was an easy task considering the Ferrari's superiority. And then what? He just waited for ages behind Kubica, floored it once the latter stopped, and came out ahead. Zero interest.

The problem with Hamiltons 3 stopper is that it's not done that often and, as Metar says, it's not usually done very well. Considering what happened to Heikki I think it would've ended as it started Massa, Heikki, Hamilton, Kimi.

If it was taken more often then it we would end up with more exciting racing. Would making 3-stoppers mandatory, for 1 or 2 nominated tracks per year for a team, work?

[Metar]

If it was taken more often then it we would end up with more exciting racing. Would making 3-stoppers mandatory, for 1 or 2 nominated tracks per year for a team, work?

We could just as well mandate a grenade, or a Shroedinger's Cat, in every engine to determine random retirements.

[roost89]

We could just as well mandate a grenade, or a Shroedinger's Cat, in every engine to determine random retirements.

That would certainly make it alot more interesting, seeing random cars blowing up!

[modbaraban]

We could just as well mandate a grenade, or a Shroedinger's Cat, in every engine to determine random retirements.

Or just add angry cats to the cockpit as 'live ballast' to unsettle the car

1 cat per race won.

So the situation would be the following:





Most sertainly would bake racing more exciting... not very green tho

[bettonracing]

We could just as well mandate a grenade, or a Shroedinger's Cat, in every engine to determine random retirements.

Or just add angry cats to the cockpit as 'live ballast' to unsettle the car

1 cat per race won.

Most sertainly would bake racing more exciting... not very green tho

ROFL!

Raikkonen, on the other hand, showed us just why a refueling-ban is good. He passed Alonso, which was an easy task considering the Ferrari's superiority. And then what? He just waited for ages behind Kubica, floored it once the latter stopped, and came out ahead. Zero interest.

1) You must plan to ban tire changes too. The same "wait for him to pit, then floor it and come out ahead" could be done with tyre stops.

2) Quite possibly with no pit stops the Ferrari's would have been on front row and there would be no passing or blisteringly fast laps from Kimi. (They've been proving to be superior on the same tires and fuel loads hence the front row assumption)

3) There's still no guarantee he would've made any valiant attempts to pass Kubica if there was no refueling. It was good to see him catch up to Hamilton towards the end of the race today but mind-numbingly boring (and disappointing) to not see any attempts at passing, although I can't blame him for not wanting to risk it (Championships are won with points, not amount of passes).

I'd say the current points system is the culprit, more so than the refueling.

Regards,

H. Kurt Betton

[flynfrog]

We could just as well mandate a grenade, or a Shroedinger's Cat, in every engine to determine random retirements.

Or just add angry cats to the cockpit as 'live ballast' to unsettle the car

1 cat per race won.

So the situation would be the following:





Most sertainly would bake racing more exciting... not very green tho

my eyes are watering I am laughing so hard

reminds me of the cougar in talledgea nights

[Rob W]

No matter which way you bake it I still think allowing teams to fuel/re-fuel as they want is the simplest way (and probably why it's already done that way). Once you start going down the path of arguing about fuel strategy ruining races you may as well make the same claim about tires and ban tire changing too - look how that panned out the other year. Lame!

I'd rather they just made their technical mods and leave the race/strategy up to the teams. Tires are hardly consistent enough at it is now without making one good enough to last an entire race...

R

[donskar]

My problem with refueling is that it is increasingly the ONLY way for the top 3 or 4 cars to pass each other!

Off the top of my head (meaning well above the brain), I'd like to see the powers that be mandate a fuel tank large enough to run the entire race. THEN let the teams decide what approach they want. That COULD lead to increased interest IF the teams were also allowed to go the distance without changing tires. Imagine a mid-field performer running the full distance with no stops at all. It could lead to some upsets.

As for the tire issue, I'd like to see a tire war, but ONLY if other tech requirements were loosened, so tires would be only one of several elements contributing to superiority.