14 reasons to love the refuelling ban (merged)

F1 is about the fastest cars on any given track being driven by the best drivers in the world.

Really, where does it say that? F1 hasn't always been the fastest, in particular on any given track, and that ethos certainly isn't written down anywhere.

It hasn't been entertaining in terms of overtaking and racing for years.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be entertaining in terms of overtaking and racing. You are saying that because F1 has been very dull for a long time, it must continue as such, because being dull is what F1 is about.

Edited by juicy sushi, 22 December 2009 - 16:28.

They need to have some kind of downforce. There's only so much mechanical grip they can put on the cars while still maintaining 'F1 level' speeds.

What are F1 level speeds, and why do they need to be maintained?

I'm not convinced that people tune in because F1 cars do x lap time, which is y seconds a lap faster than anything else.

And while I think the removal of all wings is a bit too much of a jump to be practical, I do think that the addition of ground effects and more work in simplifying over-body aero(and the diffusers) would go a long way in reducing 'the wake'.

I don't think ground effects will really help because they haven't in other series. It is still possible to be quite sensitive to the leading cars wake while utilizing ground effects tunnels, and ground effects tunnels are particularly sensitive to porpoising, which doesn't help overtaking at all.

What are F1 level speeds, and why do they need to be maintained?

I'm not convinced that people tune in because F1 cars do x lap time, which is y seconds a lap faster than anything else.


I don't think ground effects will really help because they haven't in other series. It is still possible to be quite sensitive to the leading cars wake while utilizing ground effects tunnels, and ground effects tunnels are particularly sensitive to porpoising, which doesn't help overtaking at all.

Champ Car didn't seem to have a problem and even SF mentions underbody downforce and shows some tunnels underneath the car.

The problem is that your solution is not feasible. F1 is the fastest motorsport series and that is how the public views it. If you strip all the downforce aero bits from the car like flip-ups, wings, diffusers (!) and the like you will end up with cars that will be totally uncontrollable and probably slower than a V8 Supercar around a track. No amount of tyre technology or bigger tyres will make up for the tremendous amount of grip lost through the removal of aerodynamically-generated downforce.

While I agree on your take, why not throw down the gauntlet to the F1 engineers and designers to prove us all wrong? Did you know some of the best inventions in history have come to us when a king/dictator threatened to kill an engineer unless he showed up with a solution to a problem within a given time? Cruel maybe, but oh so effective..

There were boring races even when the cars didn't have any downforce, particularly at Monaco and at the old 'Ring after refueling was banned post 57.
Monaco was always a POS for GP cars/racing (with or downforce) but it was always more fun with voiturettes/F2s/F3s.

Yes, even when the cars didn't have any downforce there were some pretty poor races, and Monaco has always been a dull one, but that doesn't change the fact that the current dependence on aerodynamic downforce, is according to everyone, the biggest impediment to passing simple because it prevents drivers from getting close enough to actually attempt a pass.

I feel removing that impediment would be a good thing.

Champ Car didn't seem to have a problem and even SF mentions underbody downforce and shows some tunnels underneath the car.

Actually, Champ Car pretty frequently did have a problem, and the races didn't improve between the Panoz and the old Lola, really.

If you want to go back to the glory years of the late 90s it was even more talked about, as the drivers all complained that the dirty air was an issue on road courses.

Yes, even when the cars didn't have any downforce there were some pretty poor races, and Monaco has always been a dull one, but that doesn't change the fact that the current dependence on aerodynamic downforce, is according to everyone, the biggest impediment to passing simple because it prevents drivers from getting close enough to actually attempt a pass.

I feel removing that impediment would be a good thing.

According to everyone ?!

Alesi mentioned engine diversity, John Watson the bigger gaps of the past, Villeneuve the drivers of today being all very well prepared and fit thus not making many mistkes, Sam Michael the tracks having to many chicanes.

Actually, Champ Car pretty frequently did have a problem, and the races didn't improve between the Panoz and the old Lola, really.

If you want to go back to the glory years of the late 90s it was even more talked about, as the drivers all complained that the dirty air was an issue on road courses.

Once they upgraded the push to pass to 100 hp it worked.

The problem is that your solution is not feasible. F1 is the fastest motorsport series and that is how the public views it.

Is it? F1 isn't the fastest series in reality (IndyCar goes faster on ovals, and in a straightline drag racers are faster still). And I haven't seen any actual evidence that the public sees F1 that way.

If you strip all the downforce aero bits from the car like flip-ups, wings, diffusers (!) and the like you will end up with cars that will be totally uncontrollable and probably slower than a V8 Supercar around a track.

Really, why will the cars be totally uncontrollable? Go-Karts don't generate downforce, and they're not uncontrollable, and nor is a Formula Ford without wings. Also, why would they be slower than a touring car? Downforce doesn't really help much in slow corners (you generate more downforce with speed), and I'm not sure how a 620kg car with stickier slicks and 760hp is going to be slower than a 1350kg cars with narrower, less grippy tires, 620hp and maybe 700kg of downforce.

No amount of tyre technology or bigger tyres will make up for the tremendous amount of grip lost through the removal of aerodynamically-generated downforce.

How much grip will actually be lost though? It's pretty hard to quantify, in particular as depending on the track, the difference would be either more or less significant.

According to everyone ?!

Alesi mentioned engine diversity, John Watson the bigger gaps of the past, Villeneuve the drivers of today being all very well prepared and fit thus not making many mistkes, Sam Michael the tracks having to many chicanes.

Every driver has mentioned that they cannot follow other cars closely due to the wake of the leading car interfering with their cars ability to generate downforce. That is a basic physics issue that cannot be overcome through less fit drivers, nor through tracks having too many chicanes. If the driver can't physically get the car close enough, the other stuff doesn't really make a difference.

Once they upgraded the push to pass to 100 hp it worked.

So, by adding a gimmick, they got some passing back, but I don't recal the races really being any better than the races with the Lola which also had the push-to-pass feature. Either way, you're arguing that the only solution is to create a passing gimmick to overcome the basic physical flaw of the car. As the argument is that you need an extra 100hp on the straight to be able to get a pass done because you can't follow the other cars closely enough, nor slipstream effectively enough, to be able to make a pass otherwise down that same straight.

It's not a gimmick.
In racing you need differences between the cars temporary/sectors based or otherwise.

It's not a gimmick.
In racing you need differences between the cars temporary/sectors based or otherwise.

I think that if the difference comes down to anything other than the performance of the drivers themselves, or the inherrent speed of the cars over that sector, then it's a bit artificial. Introducing a feature to specifically induce such a difference when none previously existed would definitely be a gimmick in my book.

I think that if the difference comes down to anything other than the performance of the drivers themselves, or the inherrent speed of the cars over that sector, then it's a bit artificial. Introducing a feature to specifically induce such a difference when none previously existed would definitely be a gimmick in my book.

With spec cars ?!
Almost every race today is spec or semi-spec, and those gaps just don't exist.

I'm not sure how more spec now cars are than at other times, save in the engine department (and that's less spec than the 1970s, when it was ford cosworths for all).

The chassis now are as different as they've ever been, and in 2013 the motors will be quite different, provided common sense remains and the energy based rules are put into use.

Where did the passing come from in the past? It came from circuits which presented passing opportunities, and cars which enabled drivers to follow closely enough to take advantage of the mistakes of drivers in front of them, or the imbalances between cars on different tracks. I'd rather not introduce artificial imbalances to create passing when it would be possible to actually enable drivers to follow closely enough to one another to actually make passes (by getting rid of the downforce).

And sometimes those gaps do exist. Drivers can vary over sectors by up to a second, by when you cannot get closer than about 2 seconds from a car in front of you before the wake becomes an issue, those differences cannot be exploited.

Edited by juicy sushi, 22 December 2009 - 18:48.

Yea, but now we'll have drivers with new tires racing against guys with older tires(will be worth a couple seconds, just like the difference between 1 and 2 stops).

Well up until now we have exact thing you're talking about PLUS the fuel load difference and it sometimes it was just enough to produce an overtaking move but usually it wasn't. Now we're removing the weight difference so what's the reason to believe that tires will suddenly become a factor huge enough to produce overtaking? Tires warmers were not banned, mind you. I'd say we're gonna be really lucky if anyone is going to overtake anyone else during the first races because of that. After that teams will have enough data to feed the computers with and everyone will know how to use the new tires. We can hope that 2010 tires will be some super erratic, unexpectedly wearing off thingies that no one will understand and races will be indeed overtaking fests but there is no real reason to believe in it and it would defy all that 'end with artificial overtaking' talk that refueling ban supporters love so much. So a car overtaking other car because it's weight difference equals about 2.5 seconds is artificial racing, but when the 2.5 secs of difference will come from tire grip it's all cool. And why even believe drivers will allow their tires to be that worn off unless something unexpected happens? Like no one is going to tell them that this is what's is going to matter and they won't be able to figure it out by themselves while teams will setup the cars like it's 2009?

Edited by wingwalker, 22 December 2009 - 19:21.

Well up until now we have exact thing you're talking about PLUS the fuel load difference

Not at all, actually.

This season(and the past seasons), a driver would put on new tires, sure, but he'd also be weighed up with fuel, which pretty much counters the extra speed potential.

Go watch some GP2 and you'll see how drivers with new tires are much quicker than drivers on old tires because they're all the same weight.

But not long enough to see Fangio slice his way back to the front after a long refueling session at the Ring in '57. It was also the last exciting Nurburgring race.
There was a sport long before you were even born, and you're not old compared to the sport of GP racing. So don't give me this B* about dumb-ass refueling.
Nuvolari, Fangio and Co. lived and raced in such a dumb-ass refueling era.

Did you mean to come over as nasty as it appears to me you have? Really no need for that level of vitriol.

For the first time ever, reading this I came close to using the ignore list.

Edited by pspidey, 24 December 2009 - 14:16.

That logic is too advanced for this forum.

Apparently most logic is.........;)

i don't know wheter the refuelling ban overall will make the races more interesting or not but the pit stops will be more interesting imo.

the reasons for that are
a) next season we won't know when and how often the drivers will come in to change the tires. They could come in at lap 15 or at lap 30 and they could come in one time or three times, we just don't know (correct?). So that alone will add a surprise element we didn't have in past seasons.
b) morevover a driver who just changed his tires will now have a advantage over those who are still on the old ones. In the past he was at a disadvantage. So that changes the whole dynamics of the pit stops. For example last year in Singapor whe had Hamilton, Rosberg, Vettel in that order before the pit stops very close together. Vettel was the first to pit than Rosberg and then Hamilton. So it was very unlikely that there would be a position change after the pit stops. In the future though a situation like that would very likely result in position changes.

I'm not crying.

After 15-20 years (as I watched) of fiddling banning turbos, active suspensions, TC banned - unbanned - banned, slicks - grooves - slicks, aero rules changed again and again, refueling brought back and now banned again, nothing ever got better really.


I'm only saying, face reality.

the graphs are a joke as clearly they should show a steeper decline early on and almost a level line over the last 14 years.
Thats why they say lies damn lies and statistics
if we only take the time you yourself said you have watched for then there has been almost 0 change in averages 11 to 10

Out of curiosity, has anyone considered that if the fuel was substantially heavier per gallon, the difference between car handling at the beginning and end of a stint would be much bigger? It's an interesting way of spinning the question of fuelling-no fuelling around. I believe that Indycar may have been on to something while using the heavier and much less efficient ethanol fuel, instead of the more normal gasoline. Races were invariably two- or three-stop affairs, but for the most part this didn't hinder the on-track excitement.