[dubGucKcolo]

So I read that the cars will not be allowed refuelling pit stops as one of the new rule changes?
True?
If so, a quick stop for tires (4 seconds or so) means even less passing opportunity and more boring races....

and with the new standard tire rules, why not just require no tire changes either?

It would seem with only one manufacturer making all tires, they should/can make the tires hard enough to last long enough without worrying about the competition building something stickier, soooooo??

that away, I can watch the start to see who gets a substantial lead in the first few laps and not even need to watch again until the end of the race to see who broke down and lost out....sad ain't it

[Glamyclitlemi]

I disagree completely.

Refuelling was a totally pointless addition to the game when it was introduced (1994, was it?) and it adds nothing to the spectacle, I think.

Getting rid of it, on the other hand, adds a lot (of what we used to have in the good old days). Drivers actually having to manage tyres, not going flat out all the time with no penance. Cars behaving totally differently at the end of the race, as compared to the beginning. Completely different strategies among teams, depending on how their cars use their tyres.

That's the stuff!

An old example, this, but remember when the uncompetitive Leyton House cars of Ivan Capelli and Mauricio Gugelmin ended up leading 1-2 at the French GP of 1990? A dry race. Just because they didn't pit for tyres at all, while others did.

Bring back the good times!

In fact, I'd cancel all the changes made to sporting regulations since 1994. It was just so much better then! Including qualifying.

[UHlVExs7]

Refueling pitstop is not only to add fuel into the tank whenever it is used up, but it is comprehensive strategy implemented for respective race the whole weekend starting from qualifying session as it might contribute to determine starting grid, how many laps drivers can use the fuel before entering pitstop, how many pitstops either it is conventional or extreme which is less or more than normal pitstops.

Refueling is another loophole for teams whose the closest approach of their accuracy will take more advantage especially for teams whose engine power is not superbly superior.
I think refueling is something to tell us cleverness of teams and drivers reading different situation will need different strategy.

Without mandatory pitstop to change the tyres which means will use super hard compound usable for the whole race have a risk with it that they will not give enough grip considered safe. It doesn't seem to be applicable, if it has to be in effect compulsively, I think the current system is a game involving higher intelligence quotient. imo.

[AnetTeilor]

In fact, I'd cancel all the changes made to sporting regulations since 1994. It was just so much better then! Including qualifying.

I completely agree!

No refuelling, multiple tyre compounds, no mandatory option tyre rubbish, no race fuel qualifying, just keep it simple!

[9wQlZkIj]

Disagree with you markability - f1 was a way better without tanking up. I think it was Estoril '93 when shumi stayed out on worn tyres to win - beating way faster cars in the process.

Also with the huge fuel tanks these cars will need the weight distribution will be all messed up and we'll see way more oversteering moments than even this year.

[dubGucKcolo]

you guys miss my point---in the good old days, there was actually passes on the track, not passes while one car pitted and so forth.

Now there is still very little passing and when it happens and there is a bump, potential penalty time.......might as well ban on track passes as well as pit stops

I do miss the good old days that "pitted" driver against driver rather than engineers against engineers and who "pitted" best.

That was real racing, but until wings are banned or very severely limited, carbon brakes are dumped.....well

Hence the perceived(by rulemakers) need for making a car run on both hards and soft compounds in the same race, so as to mess with handling and thereby create artificial excitment and competition--maybe they should keep pit stops but vary the amount of fuel that can be put in the car....one stop 8 secs, and two stops for four seconds.....and the team has to do the three stops

oh and then add the dp reality show, and I think they have the making of a big hit in the tv ratings when they broadcast all races on TV, all of which from third world countries http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74731

as soon there will be only monaco in europe

[Paiblyelaxy]

You're living in a timewarp.

F1 is far more intricate these days.

[dubGucKcolo]

You're living in a timewarp.

F1 is far more intricate these days.

true but "intricate" is another way of saying highly technical, hence boring with appeal only to fellow techies and no one else....
and if so intricate, why the need to have all these "artifiical enhancers" of weird qualifying, soft/hard tires and etc etc...

[AnetTeilor]

I just think there needs to be less artificial complications and gimmicks all round, just let the racing flow. It worked for over a century so I honestly don't see why it needed changing. Sadly F1 is all about the "show" and less about the "sport" these days

[Karpattaisp]

If you get rid of re-fueling there will be even less passing on track. Why was Alonso 2nd in qual last week? Because he didn't have any fuel onboard. That means he would of had to stop very early on and get a good lead at the start. It would have been exciting to watch, if it hadn't rained.

Now you take away fueling and all the cars will have pretty much the same amount of fuel on board. That means Alonso would have started mid pack at best. Now you say that he will manage his tires better and be there at the end? RUBBISH! The Brawns are fast BECAUSE they take care of their tires. Same with the other "good" teams.

Bottom line is, if you take away re-fueling it will be a Brawn 1-2 in qual (with the odd Red Bull squeeking in) and no one will pass anyone the entire race.

I agree though that getting rid of some of the "gimmicks" would be nice. And a good place to start would be KERS and the "option" tire. KERS seems to be going away by the teams own decisions (although I haven't heard what they are doing this weekend). And I would keep the "option" tire, but make it actually optional, ie you don't have to use it unless you want to.

Now I've drug this way off topic, sorry.

[rNr5Di3S]

The biggest change will be the shift in focus of fuel loads from qualifying to the race, where it bloody well belongs! At the moment fuel load has more impact on qualifying than the race.

The drivers will have to manage their cars as they get lighter and quicker but their tyres get worn and slower. Should be good!

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the teams have to pick a tyre compound before the race? I seem to remember teams having to choose between speed and durability in their tyre choices. Some teams would pick softer compounds and go for more stops whilst others would go the harder route and either 1 stop or not stop at all.

[dubGucKcolo]

I just think there needs to be less artificial complications and gimmicks all round, just let the racing flow. It worked for over a century so I honestly don't see why it needed changing. Sadly F1 is all about the "show" and less about the "sport" these days

as to the former, I will drink to that


as to the latter, dont forget podium ceremony, proper hats with sponsor names, and whose anthem gets played....

[Paiblyelaxy]

true but "intricate" is another way of saying highly technical, hence boring with appeal only to fellow techies and no one else....
and if so intricate, why the need to have all these "artifiical enhancers" of weird qualifying, soft/hard tires and etc etc...

Conversely, thanks to refuelling fuel is now ballast and all we mostly get is pit passing and no overtaking on the track.

Why overtake the car ahead if you know you've got more fuel and do some fantastic in and out laps.

[onelovemp]

In fact, I'd cancel all the changes made to sporting regulations since 1994. It was just so much better then! Including qualifying.

Yep everything was better before 94, those Osellas and other backmarkers used to be at least 5 seconds a lap slower than the quick guys, plus we had a great point system were you only counted 11 out of 16 races, some teams had 100 horsepower more than others, the races were boring with not a lot of lead changes... in one year one car had semi-automatic gearbox active suspension, ABS, traction control etc, while others still had a stick shift etc.... I don't know maybe we've been watching a different series. I started watching in 82.

[AnetTeilor]

Yep everything was better before 94...

"those Osellas and other backmarkers used to be at least 5 seconds a lap slower than the quick guys"

Teams like that added character to the sport. Since the demise of Minardi and Super Aguri, the grid had had a much more "sterile" feel to it.

"plus we had a great point system were you only counted 11 out of 16 races"

I agree with you here, that was bad, but in all honesty was it any worse than Bernie's proposed "medals"? Both systems over-complicate things in an attempt to reward wins greater, just increase the points differential from 1st to 2nd (as they did in 1991) and be done with it, I say.

"some teams had 100 horsepower more than others"

Whereas now we have "equalised" "homologated" engines, identical in cylinder configuration, vee angle, etc. bit of a turnoff really. And large horsepower differential leads to more overtaking. Besides, what the customer V8s lacked in horsepower they made up for in agility, fuel efficiency, and when in the back of, say a 1990 Tyrrell or Newey-designed 1988 March, a good chassis.

"the races were boring with not a lot of lead changes..."

Not really, I've watched a few old VHS of season reviews and what-have-you, if a car behind was quicker, overtaking was generally easier than it is now. If someone ran away with the race that's because he and his team deserved to, which is the whole point of a competition after all.

"in one year one car had semi-automatic gearbox active suspension, ABS, traction control etc, while others still had a stick shift etc...."

Technical variety is good, IMO of course.

"I don't know maybe we've been watching a different series. I started watching in 82."

'91 for me, I actually envy you, from what I've heard it was even better back then!

I think this is one of those "agree to disagree" moments though

[Babposa]

If you get rid of re-fueling there will be even less passing on track. Why was Alonso 2nd in qual last week? Because he didn't have any fuel onboard. That means he would of had to stop very early on and get a good lead at the start. It would have been exciting to watch, if it hadn't rained.

But, the strategy was deliberate to minimise the use of the soft tyre. If everyone knows they only get one tank of fuel, then you really have to earn your money. Manage tyres, manage fuel consumption etc.

Now you take away fueling and all the cars will have pretty much the same amount of fuel on board. That means Alonso would have started mid pack at best. Now you say that he will manage his tires better and be there at the end? RUBBISH! The Brawns are fast BECAUSE they take care of their tires. Same with the other "good" teams.

Depends on the fuel consumption of the differing engines, and the efficiency of KERS. That would make it much more interesting.

[giturbewan]

If so, a quick stop for tires (4 seconds or so) means even less passing opportunity and more boring races....

oh yes, because theres hardly any on track action because of the new rule changes which makes cars impossible to overtake and races unimaginably dull like the 1st 3 races of this year.....

my my, how boring....


(detect sarcasm there?)

[Glamyclitlemi]

Yep everything was better before 94, those Osellas and other backmarkers used to be at least 5 seconds a lap slower than the quick guys, plus we had a great point system were you only counted 11 out of 16 races, some teams had 100 horsepower more than others, the races were boring with not a lot of lead changes... in one year one car had semi-automatic gearbox active suspension, ABS, traction control etc, while others still had a stick shift etc.... I don't know maybe we've been watching a different series. I started watching in 82.

Hey, I just said that the sporting regulations were better, didn't I. And by '94, all the races counted for the championship.

[pheelixoss]

Of course in Mad Max's never ending quest to cut F1 costs this idea of having enough fuel to run the entire race makes perfect sense. Yeah right. Now the teams will have to produce a totally different car next year and that won't cost anything, unlike allowing development of the current cars with a stable rules package.
That after this year's rules that forced completely redesigned cars.
Oh wait, we will shorten the races so the current cars can be used. After all who wants to see a race last more than 30 to 45 minutes.

[Karpattaisp]

But, the strategy was deliberate to minimise the use of the soft tyre. If everyone knows they only get one tank of fuel, then you really have to earn your money. Manage tyres, manage fuel consumption etc.

Depends on the fuel consumption of the differing engines, and the efficiency of KERS. That would make it much more interesting.

You don't think that teams are managing tires and fuel now?

I'll probably keep saying this all season long, but the reason that the Brawns are so quick is because of their tire management. The DDD only adds a bit. Their use of TIRES is what has put them on top.

What will change if you have to run a whole race on one tank of fuel? The teams that are fast now (particularly on the super soft tires) will still be fast. And there will be LESS difference in strategy between teams (ala Alonso in China).

Efficiency of KERS you say. Well now we're talking. If the FIA/F1 would allow teams to use as much or as little KERS power as they wanted or could develop then we'd see some good stuff. Limiting them to 80HP for 6.6 sec is just dumb. Most teams have figured out that they would rather have the ~80lbs to place where they want it than the small amount of "boost" they get each lap.