DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - It's been a few years, and I'm still happy that RE-FUELING is gone.

**Britfunclubs** · 04-25-2012, 02:05 AM

I think the argument there is that with refueling a race consisted of a series of sprint races, not a full ~300km event.

If they were on a single set of tyres I could see the distinction but they haven't taken out pit stops, only refueling.

Soo… A driver can theoretically cross the finish line first, but not win the event because another car scored more points because he had more fuel
remaining in this tank .

Not at all. It was more a concept to promote self handicapping and closer racing. Teams would be rewarded for weighing their cars down with fuel. Probably not that attractive at the beginning of a season but as drivers have DNF's or teams get behind in WCC points then it could be an element that comes into play. I would never see it as a dominant feature or compulsory.

Just kicking a can...

I prefer the idea that’s been previously mentioned: Allow each team a pre-determined maximum amount of fuel for race day, but make the restriction severe, and allow full development and use of energy recovery systems, e.g. KERS.

I go exactly the polar opposite. Give them as much fuel as they need to get themselves around the track as quickly as possible.

I don't think F1 has ever seen KERS as a fuel saver. It was a push to pass tool and still is although I like the idea of pit travel being under KERS power. The pit crews could throw away their headsets.

I’m no mechanic, but I think the problem there is the small size and mass of a fly wheel in a formula one car would result in minimal energy recovery.

If memory serves, Williams had a working flywheel KERS system. When F1 bought in the DRS, there was no need for KERS to be regulated as a push to pass tool.

The flywheel option had great potential and may be an opportunity lost. To my mind, the world has plenty of batteries.

04-25-2012, 02:05 AM	#34
Britfunclubs Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 361 Senior Member	I think the argument there is that with refueling a race consisted of a series of sprint races, not a full ~300km event. If they were on a single set of tyres I could see the distinction but they haven't taken out pit stops, only refueling. Soo… A driver can theoretically cross the finish line first, but not win the event because another car scored more points because he had more fuel remaining in this tank . Not at all. It was more a concept to promote self handicapping and closer racing. Teams would be rewarded for weighing their cars down with fuel. Probably not that attractive at the beginning of a season but as drivers have DNF's or teams get behind in WCC points then it could be an element that comes into play. I would never see it as a dominant feature or compulsory. Just kicking a can... I prefer the idea that’s been previously mentioned: Allow each team a pre-determined maximum amount of fuel for race day, but make the restriction severe, and allow full development and use of energy recovery systems, e.g. KERS. I go exactly the polar opposite. Give them as much fuel as they need to get themselves around the track as quickly as possible. I don't think F1 has ever seen KERS as a fuel saver. It was a push to pass tool and still is although I like the idea of pit travel being under KERS power. The pit crews could throw away their headsets. I’m no mechanic, but I think the problem there is the small size and mass of a fly wheel in a formula one car would result in minimal energy recovery. If memory serves, Williams had a working flywheel KERS system. When F1 bought in the DRS, there was no need for KERS to be regulated as a push to pass tool. The flywheel option had great potential and may be an opportunity lost. To my mind, the world has plenty of batteries.
	Quote