Would races be interesting will fuel and type stops?

A friend suggested to me the other day that refuelling should return to Formula One, however he stated that it should come back with a rule that drivers could not change tyres and refuel at the same time. Therefore having separate fuel and tyre stops.

Would this make the racing interesting, or would it mean every driver would be on the same strategy?

A friend suggested to me the other day that refuelling should return to Formula One, however he stated that it should come back with a rule that drivers could not change tyres and refuel at the same time. Therefore having separate fuel and tyre stops.

 

Would this make the racing interesting, or would it mean every driver would be on the same strategy?

Why bring in such an artificial rule?

Just abolish the existing restrictions on tyre usage, that would allow teams to develop different strategies.

Random water sprinklers and random SC cars!

Just tell the teams: You are going to run the amount of laps equivalent of 305 Km. Manage it the way you please.

The only mandatory fuel/tyre stops rule that I thought made an improvement on the racing was the single-tyre one in 2005. But I'm not sure that would work without a tyre war.

Come to think of it, it basically ended the tyre war.

I don't think the racing got any better or worse in 1994 when fuel stops were allowed, or any worse or better in 2010 when they were banned again.

Edited by Risil, 14 May 2014 - 17:40.

It would merely make races overly complicated, and the pitlane more dangerous.

Personally, I really liked refuelling in-race. I thought it made qualifying strategy interesting as you could go low fuel and go for pole or go for a longer first stint but for a slower qualifier. I know there was the safety aspect with drivers being released with the hose attached, but I always thought that the cars could install a system where it cannot move until the fuel hose is clear. Perhaps pneumatic jacks like in sportscar and GT raving which wouldn't retract until it's clear. 

Indycar still do it, and I don't see a problem with their racing.

The only thing know is it could potentially go against the new ethos of the rules regarding efficiency...

I ever said that banning refueling was the biggest failure. 

Refueling made races so much better, racing was better because the drivers could push like hell and the different strategies were awesome.

In my opinion, lack of refueling and cheese tyres had a singular objective.... To increase race duration and TV time. Bernie is not about to roll back the show... racing be damned.

I think they would be interesting without pitstops.

I think they would be interesting without pitstops.

 

The option not to have pitstops at least, but keeping the current tyres. Not that I'd expect anyone to try and run to the end, but it would provide for a wider range of strategies.

Doesn't anyone remember the racing back when refuelling was allowed?

ALL of the overtaking was done using strategy tricks in the pits. The teams didn't allow the drivers to race because it wasted fuel and stuffed the strategy.

If you hate the tyre saving now, then refueling gave a similar restriction to the on track action.

Also, the refuelling mechanics were being injured at an unacceptable rate.

I was happy to see the back of it.

The option not to have pitstops at least, but keeping the current tyres. Not that I'd expect anyone to try and run to the end, but it would provide for a wider range of strategies.

Yes teams should be able to decide for themselves, to me pit-stops, fuel and tires are for long distance sportscar racing and do not belong in F1 at all. I am fully aware that the possibility of pit-stops have been with the sport since the 1930ies, my issue is that they are mandatory.

Doesn't anyone remember the racing back when refuelling was allowed?

 

ALL of the overtaking was done using strategy tricks in the pits. The teams didn't allow the drivers to race because it wasted fuel and stuffed the strategy.

 

If you hate the tyre saving now, then refueling gave a similar restriction to the on track action.

 

Also, the refuelling mechanics were being injured at an unacceptable rate.

 

I was happy to see the back of it.

The overtakes you see now are because of DRS and tyres, not because of lack of refueling.

Probably the only thing I liked about refueling was that it was better to pit a few laps later to overtake compared to the annoying undercuts of today. Othervise, banning refueling was one of the best things that F1 has changed during a long time. 

Refueling is dead and it should stay dead. What so good about cars passing other cars if they are much lighter? What was so great about waiting for pit stops to pass, avoiding, even more than nowadays, any on-track racing?

I disagree. They are giving an incentive to pass on the track yes, but they are not the only reason.

Even with these gimicks, refuelling would still stop many overtakes since its much lower risk to pass in the pits on strategy than to go wheel to wheel.

Probably the only thing I liked about refueling was that it was better to pit a few laps later to overtake compared to the annoying undercuts of today. Othervise, banning refueling was one of the best things that F1 has changed during a long time. 

Why is overtaking by pitting two laps later better than pitting two laps earlier? At least there's a bit of game theory in the undercut.

If they (hopefully)ban tire warmers the undercut won't be as dramatic. The extra lap(s) on warm tires will offset the advantage of new tires.

The cars would be faster and with no fuel restriction engines would rev higher. Sprint races vs endurance races. I'd vote for it. 

I wanted the ban on refuelling because I thought, naively, that there would be more overtakes out of the pits. Then came DRS...

Edit. 2014 cars need a weight loss and a smaller fuel tank would be good, but that is totally against the "green" aspect, so NO WAY.

Edited by 4MEN, 14 May 2014 - 19:06.

Doesn't anyone remember the racing back when refuelling was allowed?

 

Yes, I do....and I liked it. 

As someone said, maybe making cars stay on track for the whole race (i.e. no pit stops at all) would be the best way to force them to race on track. Offering something like 3 different compounds to chose from per race, with no mandatory use, would probably be the next best thing followed by refuelling. Of course, this from the POV of someone who heavily prefers on-track racing to strategy in any category of auto races.

I never liked refueling.  It should have been an experiment that lasted until the 1994 German Grand Prix when Jos Verstappen's car caught fire in the pits.  It is an unnecessary safety risk which changes, but doesn't improve, the racing. 

With all the tyres falling off cars these days, I could do without tyre stops either.  You'd have to allow changes for flats, but a minimum stationary time would prevent gaming that system.  

Making anything mandatory sucks. I don't like refuelling simply because drivers would wait to pass in the pits. They should be able to run what ever tire they want at any time. Want to run a hard block of a tire for the whole race and not stop then do it. Want to run super soft tires only and put 3 times do it. The mandatory use of both compounds is lame. In fact i think they should bring three tire compounds to every race and let them decide how they want to use them

If a race series goes the refueling route everyone should start the race with a full tank.

The idea of starting with the qualifying fuel load is idiotic, why would you have such a stupid rule??

.

Ironically, refuelling would be interesting in this efficiency era. With no fuel flow limit, or a bigger one than 100kg/h, the most efficient power units would require less kg of fuel to start with and their refuelling pitstops would be quicker. 

Nowadays, how do you know which one is the most efficient?

id like free tyre rules, so do whatever u want with the 2 compounds

http://cliptheapex.com/overtaking/

Stats showing overtaking during the refuelling era, yes the numbers were already dropping naturally before it came in but they drop sharply and stay firmly on the deck throughout the period.

You have to remember the big changes in technical regs during this period, stepped floors, narrow chassis, narrow treaded tyres, chopped diffusers, endless wing changes, engine freezes, rev limits, engine configuration changes, moveable aero, KERS, TC legal and illegal, engine capacity reduction and endless tyre wars but none of it had the slightest effect on overtaking. Refuelling is banned and BANG! we see passing again.

I can remember Hill Vs Schumacher in 94/95 and can remember the euphoria in the press when one of them passed the other on-track after about a year and a half of racing each other.......I'm glad to see the back of it personally.

I ever said that banning refueling was the biggest failure. 

Refueling made races so much better, racing was better because the drivers could push like hell and the different strategies were awesome.

And it's was Michael's greatest strength... As well as Fernando Alonso's.

And it's was Michael's greatest strength... As well as Fernando Alonso's.

Fernando wasn't too bad after it was banned. 

Nowadays, how do you know which one is the most efficient?

This must be one of the most stupid posts ever 

Edited by scheivlak, 14 May 2014 - 22:56.

How about no refuelling and no tyre changes during a race? Could this work? What sort of racing would this produce?

If they got rid of the fuel flow limit... you'd have to have refueling.

Which would be a great idea IMO.

34 posts

34 different ideas

And we wonder why rule makers cannot agree on rule changes.

Refueling made races much better. Cars were lighter and drivers could push more through all race.

IMO F1 became a joke. Compare F1 before 1997 and now - it is like day and night difference.

refuelling is dark age of motorsport.............during MSC domination !!!

Edited by AngelaTifosi, 15 May 2014 - 06:08.

http://cliptheapex.com/overtaking/

 

Stats showing overtaking during the refuelling era, yes the numbers were already dropping naturally before it came in but they drop sharply and stay firmly on the deck throughout the period.

 

You have to remember the big changes in technical regs during this period, stepped floors, narrow chassis, narrow treaded tyres, chopped diffusers, endless wing changes, engine freezes, rev limits, engine configuration changes, moveable aero, KERS, TC legal and illegal, engine capacity reduction and endless tyre wars but none of it had the slightest effect on overtaking. Refuelling is banned and BANG! we see passing again.

 

I can remember Hill Vs Schumacher in 94/95 and can remember the euphoria in the press when one of them passed the other on-track after about a year and a half of racing each other.......I'm glad to see the back of it personally.

I totally agree, during the refueling era almost every race was won by whoever got to the first corner first.  We have that situation again this year with Merc and we had it with the second half of 2013 with RB but in 2010, 2011, 2012 and the first half of 2013 there was some real unpredictability in the sport which made it really exciting to watch.  

I would ditch DRS and end the tyre fiasco by allowing teams to do their own deals like they do with engines to try and improve on track action.  Not sure a pit ban would be practicable. 

Refueling made races much better. Cars were lighter and drivers could push more through all race.

 

IMO F1 became a joke. Compare F1 before 1997 and now - it is like day and night difference.

Don't know why you mention 1997 - a year without any significant regulation change - but if you rewatch the full 1997 season (a typical refuel year) you'll find that, overall, racing has possibly never been as boring as that year. In most GPs there was hardly any passing on track.

The overtakes you see now are because of DRS and tyres, not because of lack of refueling.

And yet everyone complained about 2010 due to the Alonso fiasco. Cheesecake tires is now what refuelling was then.

Refueling went amiss when qualification was brought into it, the only plusside from the ban on refueling is the qualy on empty tanks, not race tactics in qualy.

The decline in overtakes was due to reductions in mechanical grip and increase in aero grip. Not only that, but when cars can take corners with 230 which used to be 170 and the topspeed is reduced from 360 to 320-330, you can see why overtakes became harder. Together with improved brakes, the brake distance is way shorter than it used to be. Only this year we see an increase in topspeed and less grip.

I liked the refueling era. It was an additional tactic and it is something the Pirelli's need to survive a few laps. Perhaps lighter cars would be better for them.

I hate the fake 'show' with DRS. Yay, 100+ overtakes in a race. Just as significant as NASCAR overtakes now, while it used to be an art.

The cars would be faster and with no fuel restriction engines would rev higher. Sprint races vs endurance races. I'd vote for it. 

I wanted the ban on refuelling because I thought, naively, that there would be more overtakes out of the pits. Then came DRS...

 

Edit. 2014 cars need a weight loss and a smaller fuel tank would be good, but that is totally against the "green" aspect, so NO WAY.

2014 cars need better engines, bigger fuel tanks and dump all the electrics. If you wanna race green cars lets have the world Prius championship. Slow thirsty cars that would bore all three spectators to death.

If they got rid of the fuel flow limit... you'd have to have refueling.

This is not a logical conclusion.  Without the fuel flow limit, there is still a maximum fuel allowed.  Refuelling still isn't necessary.  So then you can get rid of the total fuel allotment.  The teams can still make the tank bigger if they want to use more fuel.  So in reality, neither the fuel flow limit, nor the race fuel allotment is what prevents refueling.  The only thing that prevents refueling is the rule that says no refueling.     

Don't know why you mention 1997 - a year without any significant regulation change - but if you rewatch the full 1997 season (a typical refuel year) you'll find that, overall, racing has possibly never been as boring as that year. In most GPs there was hardly any passing on track.

I meant 1997 and before. 1997 was last year with 20 cm wider cars and slick tyres. Also V10 engines had really great sound. It was proper racing series. Current F1 looks in comparison to F1 in "old days" like some GP3 series.

This must be one of the most stupid posts ever 

You don't deserve an answer.

Doesn't anyone remember the racing back when refuelling was allowed?

 

ALL of the overtaking was done using strategy tricks in the pits. The teams didn't allow the drivers to race because it wasted fuel and stuffed the strategy.

 

If you hate the tyre saving now, then refueling gave a similar restriction to the on track action.

 

Also, the refuelling mechanics were being injured at an unacceptable rate.

 

I was happy to see the back of it.

That would be the case today too if there wasn't tyres with big drop in performance and DRS.

You didn't get it. I don't give a f. about the green aspect.    2014 with bigger tanks wouldn't be F1 but truck racing.

Edited by 4MEN, 15 May 2014 - 13:07.

Refueling would also mean shorter, lighter cars. Yay. It is very road relevant to have a car that can refuel and not haul 300 liters of fuel around. Would you do that on a road relevant holiday?

 It is very road relevant to have a car that can refuel and not haul 300 liters of fuel around. Would you do that on a road relevant holiday?

How are F1 high pressure refueling rigs road relevant?  How is stopping to refuel a car every 30 minutes road relevant? 

I cant see anything that increases costs being implemented any time soon.

For the next few years its going to be like the government in a recession. Cuts, cuts and cuts.

Edited by Retrofly, 15 May 2014 - 15:42.