[astefecyAvevy]

I think refueling era had its own charm. It was a different spectacle and definetely for people, who like to enjoy flat-out driving - sprints between pitstops.

.

Like me.
I'd rather see 1 overtake in the pits than 10 worthless DRS overtakings (like we have now) or the magical sight of drivers having to save their tyres throughout the stints and not going as fast as possible because the tyres would just die then.

[neniajany]

Even though I agree that the safety aspects of re-fueling were an ever present danger, I have a couple of issues with the removal of refueling.

Firstly I cannot get my head around pit assisted fuel management. I see that engineers giving instructions to the driver for engine settings as a driver aid pure and simple. Since refueling has been banned in the modern era, I cannot recall a single car that has run out of fuel during the race. That statistic to me is ridiculous in the extreme and an indication of how artificial the fuel environment is.

Secondly, the idea that a car can start a race with less fuel than is required to finish is simply crazy. To me that is not racing, its an economy run. I have posted before that bonus points could be awarded for fuel remaining in a tank at the end of a race but the current practice of starting with insufficient fuel is just wrong when coupled with computer aided fuel management.

Re-fueling has dangers but those dangers can be, and need to be, managed. Penalties seem to be handed out for anything and everything these days so refueling incidents would be handled far more seriously. Obviously they weren't handled seriously enough in the past if the powers that be decided that the only way to make fuel stops safe was to remove them.

The decision not to use flywheel based KERS systems appeared to me to show that the environment is not driving anyone's agenda so get refueling back and start burning fuel like F1 is supposed to. Fuel weight is its own penalty. Carry as little as is needed, as often as is needed, to get the car around the track as quickly as possible.

Its motorsport for crying out loud...

[MarlboroCig]

Like me.
I'd rather see 1 overtake in the pits than 10 worthless DRS overtakings (like we have now) or the magical sight of drivers having to save their tyres throughout the stints and not going as fast as possible because the tyres would just die then.

You mean like saving fuel just to stretch out a stint

[Arkadiyas]

I have posted before that bonus points could be awarded for fuel remaining in a tank at the end of a race but the current practice of starting with insufficient fuel is just wrong when coupled with computer aided fuel management.

You do know that that would lead to even more driving in fuel saving mode?

[leangarance]

You mean like saving fuel just to stretch out a stint

Which does happen even more these days in this endurance racing series that is F(ail)1.

[attackDoold]

I have posted before that bonus points could be awarded for fuel remaining in a tank at the end of a race .

Hopefully you will never get to any position with power considering the kind of ideas you come up with.

[29clepayJainync]

I'd rather see 1 overtake in the pits than 10 worthless DRS overtakings (like we have now) or the magical sight of drivers having to save their tyres throughout the stints and not going as fast as possible because the tyres would just die then.

To each their own

[EnubreBense]

Hopefully you will never get to any position with power considering the kind of ideas you come up with.

Hi Garry,


I'll go back to sleep then but before I do, my original point still stands.

Computer aided fuel management, provided from the pits, is a driver aid in my opinion. What is wrong with seeing the current situation in that way? At best the in-car computing power should provide the driver the information for fuel management. What's next, pit assisted passes?

As to the other stuff, if the race fuel load is based on the amount of fuel a car used in its fastest qualifying lap, then giving an incentive to wind down the engine would result in closer racing. Carrying the weight penalty of unneeded fuel deserves a bonus, either to a team or a driver. Just kicking it around in the interest of closer racing.

To my mind, anything is better than DRS...

[creewespock]

In theory, I like the idea of removing all engine regulations and just stipulating the volume of fuel that each car can use during the race, but unfortunately I believe that will lead to significant expenditure by the big teams on engine R&D, which to be honest, is not sustainable in this sport. If we want F1 to prosper, we need the great majority of the teams to be able to show at least modest profits year in year out. That unfortunately means costs have to be contained.

As for refuelling, I don't miss it at all. It was a gimmick and it was dangerous. I very much like that cars now have to be setup for their fuell range of weight and drivers have to cope with chaging cars.


Also very glad that qualifying is now done on fumes. Those years of qualifying on fuel were terrible and made quali and all its stats meaningless.

[houkbsdov]

... To me that is not racing, its an economy run. ...

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

... I have posted before that bonus points could be awarded for fuel remaining in a tank at the end of a race ...

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 .

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.

...The decision not to use flywheel based KERS systems ...

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.

[kathy]

Hi Garry,


I'll go back to sleep then but before I do, my original point still stands.

Computer aided fuel management, provided from the pits, is a driver aid in my opinion. What is wrong with seeing the current situation in that way? At best the in-car computing power should provide the driver the information for fuel management. What's next, pit assisted passes?

As to the other stuff, if the race fuel load is based on the amount of fuel a car used in its fastest qualifying lap, then giving an incentive to wind down the engine would result in closer racing. Carrying the weight penalty of unneeded fuel deserves a bonus, either to a team or a driver. Just kicking it around in the interest of closer racing.

To my mind, anything is better than DRS...

Sometimes silence is better than posting. This was one of those times.

[Rasklad]

Sometimes silence is better than posting. This was one of those times.

Not only have they banned refueling, they are allowing teams to start the race with less fuel than is required to finish. I see this to be every bit as gimmicky as grooved tyres, DRS or push to pass KERS.


If fuel stops are permanently removed, which I fear they are, then teams should be required to start with a minimum fuel volume. Their burn during their fastest qualifying lap multiplied by the number of laps. Simple. If they want to carry less fuel then they wind the car back in qualifying.

I'm not convinced that its best for the sport for a driver to put himself at the front of the grid and then hope to be far enough ahead to run the last quarter on 4 cylinders. Its the same for all drivers of course but personally, any part of the racing that lacks transparency gives me the sh*ts. Fuel is a big part of the racing and spectators have no idea what is happening at any point.


There seemed to be a problem with my suggestion of giving points for fuel remaining in the tank. Fair enough. It was only as a sweetener for "saving the planet" and to encourage self handicapping which might result in closer racing.

[Polopolop]

Sometimes silence is better than posting. This was one of those times.

To be fair his/her post was in response to something you posted which may have also benefitted from the advice you have given in your latest post.
Sometimes its best to accept a difference of opinion without being too rude IMO.

[Britfunclubs]

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.

[AngegepeM]

I liked the magic with Ross and Michael did in the years with refueling, but with tons of overtaking thanks to the DRS and Pirelli, now F1 is more fun, I have to admit.

I think thats one of the key factors in Schumi's relative lack of performance since coming back to F1. Think back to Schumi's early career, it wasnt until '94 when refuelling was introduced that Schumi really came to the fore, him and Ross Brawn really worked the refuelling strategies to the full, aided by very consistant tyres. Now that F1 is no longer about sprints on low fuel and with tyres that need looking after I don't think it plays to his strengths and at 43 its pretty certain that Micheal is past his best and even he has acknowledged this.

Getting back on track of what this thread is about, i'm of the opinion that refuelling should never have been re-introduced in the 1st place, legend has it that Bernie tacked the suggestion of re-introducing refuelling onto the end of a meeting with the teams back in '93, the teams agreed in principle but then most of them tried to reverse it when they figured out the various implications of it, but Ferrari refused to agree to reverse the decision (at the time they were using a gorgeous sounding but thirsty V12, therefore in theory they had the most to gain from refuelling) so it was implemented for '94 where ironically it was a Ford V8 powered Benetton driven by Micheal Schumacher that won through amongst countless allegations of cheating (indeed, the car was found to have traction control software buried deep in it's ECU, along with McLaren though both claimed to use it for "testing purposes").

[ttoothh]

I think thats one of the key factors in Schumi's relative lack of performance since coming back to F1. Think back to Schumi's early career, it wasnt until '94 when refuelling was introduced that Schumi really came to the fore
(...)

Ford V8 powered Benetton driven by Micheal Schumacher that won through amongst countless allegations of cheating (indeed, the car was found to have traction control software buried deep in it's ECU, along with McLaren though both claimed to use it for "testing purposes").

I disagree about the first part. Michael was strong since 1992, when he bothered Mansell, Senna and Patrese with an arguably weaker Benetton. About the 1994 car, it's ironic that usually Macca fans scream foul about it, given that nice little piece of information. Back on topic, I think that Mike adapted very well to the changes in 1994, now he has lost this ability, to learn new things... because IMO he is a bit old for F1 Still good, but no longer magical.

[ManHolDenPoker]

Can you give examples of McLaren fans being the ones who cry foul about schuey's illegal TC in '94 or is this just your general opinion on the subject? Seems to me that's just an excuse to slip in a dig f1boat :thumbdown:

[AlexanderPalamayr]

Unless he meant Paul McCartney fans. Sorry, I mean George

[Dastyh]

To be fair his/her post was in response to something you posted which may have also benefitted from the advice you have given in your latest post.
Sometimes its best to accept a difference of opinion without being too rude IMO.

Rude? I was not being even slightly rude to him, just stating that I hoped he never got to any position of power.

[DiatryDal]

I was not being even slightly rude

Really? I could swear your lips were moving...