FOTA are using tools form Mosley's arsenal.

Throw in dozens of crazy ideas. Negotiate so that extreme proposals will fade away, but beneficial one would stay. Get the result.

Besides Mosley would not be able to start his old song that he is the only one who thinks about the future of F1 and Formula-1 teams are the victims of illusions.

Very good.

It could lead to fewer pitstops.

There's gonna be ample space to put Bridgestone stickers on the new front wings though...

Oh, and limit the amount of people allowed to work on a car during stops, too. Say 1 per tyre, 2 for the jacks and 1 to wipe the driver's visor, and that's it. Saves travel and hotel expenses, and allows for more races, since only half the team would be needed at races.

so?
they will use more in the practice sessions, maybe more friday running
even better if it's like this

How can you remove the variable of varying fuel loads among competitors in the first stint of a race and not dumb it down?!

Remember, if you remove the fuel load as a variable you also largely remove the tire (tyre) wear variable:

Dumb and Dumber say I!

We need longer races anyway IMO, it's not long enough today as it is. A refuelling ban could make a lot of difference to how interesting races are, but I can't vote Yes if it means that the races will be chopped down to mini size for those who aren't really interested in F1.

Yeah. This is all because Ferrari have tossed both championships on bad fuel stops. It's all about Ferrari.

I hope you guys realise that refuel-ban leads to uniform strategies.
Everyone will do one stop (except for Lewis ;) ) and racing could be even worse.

You seem to take for granted, that nowadays there are always some cars on one, two or even three stops in the field. That is by no means given, in fact it has been very rare in the past.

Then you know nothing about non-refuelling race strategies. You might like to go back and review the many years of F1 when refuelling was not a part of it.

Hardly. This is FOTA talking about this, not the FIA. That means ALL the teams are considering this. But dont let that stop the conspiracy talks......

Bidgestone doesn't care about practice sessions, it wants it tires to be seen during races and a pitstop is a great moment for that.
But you don't have to convince me, I was merely listing what could be the pros and cons.

I am fine with no refuelling, stupid rearwings or whatever the FOTA geniuses come up with, provided it brings better racing.

Well, maybe... my optimistic view on this is that different cars and different driving styles will lead to different levels of tyre wear, forcing people to use radically different strategies, or at least to time their 1-stop at different laps. Also, cars that are quick at the beginning of the race with full tanks might not be quick at the end with empty tanks, or the opposite.

It seems to work very well on GP2, you get drivers falling back at the end of the race as they've worn their tyres too much, and others charging from the back. As for strategy, mostly you get everyone stopping around the same 4-5 laps window for tyres except for a bunch of guys that might try something different - but you still get overtaking in the pits this way. And in GP2 you have a mandatory 1-stop strategy where you have to change to the same compound of tyre, F1 wouldn't be this way, there'd be more variables...

I don't think so.

Firstly, even if we all had 1 or 0-stop races: What's bad about this? Ever seen a race where 3 stops are the norms? After the first 50 stops it kinda stinks! If stops are the only thing to keep racing exciting, there's something wrong. Racing should be good even without stops.

Secondly, if the difference between tyre compounds is large enough, we might see interesting strategies. Such as Mansell stopping for super softs in Monaco, hoping to get past Senna. We don't see that today, but I would have loved it in some situations (Schuey behind Alonso Imola '05).

Yes yes yes Plllllllllllease....pretty please

And cars with massive torque & big fat slicks instead of these high reving streamlined sewing machines. While were at it, how about we get some real men to drive the cars too.

Good point: banning refuelling should be accompanied by at least a 2-tier difference in tyre compounds. Which is what Bridgestone proposes for 2009, IIRC.

Nice, you don't want refuel and want longer or same long races? They would need much more than 150 kgs fuel. That's weight which they would have on start but miss in finish. This diference could cause problems with suspension. Ok on start but too hard in finish or too weak on start and ok in finish => most of time they will be slower.
Btw. What about tyres? Can change or have to stay on same whole race? So you mean no pit stops?

Well, as I approach my 5th decade of life and my 4th decade of F1, I expect that I have seen and understand quite a bit about it.

Next year, the cars will be wider - and the tracks will not. KERS means more instantaneous torque but there will be less space to use it. Reduced downforce means more late braking for passing - when there is room for 2 cars through the turn (reduced to wider cars). So more passing will happen in the pits. I know, let's reduce the pit stops! You all like processions - especially if there are "pewter" coloured cars in the lead.

Jesus! Now that is angst!

The cars will not be wider next year.

And there's reduced downforce, which will hurt the braking, but then there's slicks, which will help it.

I think they will be wider.

Ban refuelling - yes please. Shorter races - no. Changed format? I do hope they aren't thinking of GP2/A1GP style 'sprint and feature' meetings. And 2x1 hour qualifying.

Then get rid of the manufacturers...

Why would you think that?

2009 Technical Regulations:

3.3 Overall width :
The overall width of the car, including complete wheels, must not exceed 1800mm with the steered wheels in the straight ahead position. Overall width will be measured when the car is fitted with tyres inflated to 1.4 bar.

From the official FIA tech regs:

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/9...257483004B8AC0/$FILE/1-2009%20F1%20TECHNICAL%20REGULATIONS%2011-07-2008.pdf

Here:


http://grandprix.com/ns/ns17890.html

//sry. they changed it and I didn't know

Look at the date on the article bro.

You must have aterribly short memory then. Look at the number of passes for position pre-fuel stops, and then post-fuel stops. You seem to have come to the conclusion that racing has become more processional on-track regardless of the change in format. Others among us can see that the format is a major factor as to why on-track racing has diminished. How wide, exactly, do you think the cars are going to get?

So if you ban refuelling you create a fuel economy race. I watched them and they were no fun. So then the teams will spend a fortune trying to get an extra 1% in fuel economy out of their engines. No reduction in cost for the teams.

Then there is the question of the safety of a fully fuelled car having an accident. More weight, all of it flammable liquid, means more energy in a collision.

If you ban tyre changes you create a first 1/3 to 1/2 of the race where no one will want to do anything because that is when their car will punish the tyres and make then useless if they overdo it. Then you have the last 1/3 of the race when the tyres are shot and no one can pass.

Want better racing? Aerodynamics - aerodynamics - aerodynamics

Want to ban something - ban wind tunnels. Ban those Fluid Computational computer programs.

Get rid of the flip ups, the barge boards, all the horns and ducts and mini wings.

Want to have fun with the engines - allow manufacturers to use road car engines up to 4.5 litres and allow the garagistas to buy them. The days when a "racing" engine was ligh years ahead of a street engine are long gone. What better advertising than for (BMW, Mercedes, Ferrari, Honda, Toyota) to run an ad saying that the engine in your car just won the race at Monaco! Not the brand but the same engine - there will be differences of course but keep them as little as possible.

Given all that F1 is, and isn't, the last thing it needs is to make things boring, which is probably what a refuelling ban will produce.

How many fuel fires were there before re-fueling was re-introduced? Your really going back to around Lauda's accident, and the fuel cell is massively safer than then.

I didnt notice a lack of action when tyre changes were banned. It's quite obvious that the tyre manufacturers can easily make tyres that can last the distance without a huge drop off of performance. As they are all on the same tyres this year, any difference is down to the drivers/cars. So the guys/teams that can use the tyres best would get an advantage, it's then up to the others to pick up their game.

Not if you keep the engine regs the same. With engine development open, they could build more powerful engines that used more fuel, but with all the engines practically the same, the fuel consumption should be pretty close between the teams. Make the regulations so that they have to put in enough fuel that'll last the whole race pushing 100%, and this wont be an issue. Fuel economy shouldn't play a large issue at all under these circumstances. 1% increase in fuel economy will only leave you with extra fuel in the tank at the end of the race since you cant turn the power up on the engine to make up for it.

If cars cant overtake on the track, then fueling is only way they can pass each other.

If overtaking problem is thoroughly fixed, then F1 can give-up refueling. BUT those larger fuel tanks must be ridiculously over-engineered to be safe. I dont want to see any big fireballs.

NO!

It's one of the ways for a slower car to have a shot at higher positions. If overtaking will be much more frequent next year it makes it even better, but if not at least cars can overtake each other in the pit or with shorter stints.

Shorten the races? Ridicuolous, make them a little longer if anything! And no GP2-style format please.

Of course NO. People here can't understand - refuelling is giving thousand tactics opportunities, first of all for small teams. And different fuel loads provoking different behaviour of the same cars. And in the end we have element of unexpectedness. So definitely NO.

A little historical perspective...

The point of fueling mid-race was safety, to avoid cars running with full tanks at the beginning, but modern F1 setups are quite safe when it comes to fire, it's rare that cars catch fire now. Amazing actually. This happened almost every race in the 70s-80s.

So what will happen if they ban fuel stops? It will get more interesting because the handling setups will now have to take into account a lot of extra weight at the beginning. huge weight changes during races mean more emphasis on the driver. 2008 is the season that most fans will realize there is quite a lot of overpaid eurotrash in F1 who shouldn't be there.

Why consider this, and no tire stops?

1. Bring the sport back to its roots. Pit stops were a feeble attempt to interest Americans in F1, and they've now officially given up on that, thankfully.
2. Save money -no need for all those fuel rigs and mechanics to be transported, cut way down on tire costs and transportation costs.
3. Safety-no fires on track has been replaced with pit fires and run-down Ferrari mechanics. Rumor has it Ferrari picks its hose man with shortest straws.
4. Greening F1 in a meaningful way, not just painting green stripes on tires that last 14 laps, the single most ridiculous thing I've seen in F1 to date.

As for comparisons with the past, the old rules that led to empty tanks on track were an attempt to slow the turbos, which had a huge thirst for petrol. The new rules won't see cars running out of fuel.

And what boring fuel economy race have you been watching? I've all Grand Prix from the 1980's and I found those races very interesting. At least drivers had still an opportunity to win a race in those days, despite being 10 seconds behind with 8 laps to go.

I'll call BS on that. It was introduced to spice up the show and no other reason. If anything it's more dangerous refueling the cars than it is to have them running with larger tanks.

No, it was invented by Bernie's Brabham cos if you could do a pitstop in 15s or so you had an advantage.

I wouldn't be that much against shorter races, provided we have a couple of them per GP and that their combined length were higher than what we have now. Let's say 2 races over 200 km.

But I'm pretty sure they would use reversed grids for the second race, and that bit I don't like so much.

I say: have a brainstorm at Shanghai, note every idea. Then, wait for the first few races of the next season and have another meeting around May-June 2009, before it's too late to implement radical design changes. Discuss whether 2009 regulations have improved the show and then decide what to do for 2010.

What I mean is, we have a set of radical rule changes for next year. We don't know how they'll work. It's dumbass to discuss anything before you know what the actual racing will be next year.

And then refueling was banned, being reintroduced in 1993. The reintroduction was to spice up the show.

NO SHORTER RACE PLEASE !! They're too short as they are if they're worried about the size of the fuel tanks and the car design then let them have controlled fuel stops.

Every car must come in on say lap 20 & 40 then after a 3 minute break they're released at the correct intervals they entered the pit lane.

ban refuelling, don't make the races shorter, make the minimum quantity of fuel carried by the cars mandatory to avoid gambling and worrying about running out of it.

Voilà.. proper racing ensues.

The only stipulation should be the maximum amount of fuel a car can carry. If a team can race with less than that, then they should be allowed to take advantage of it and not be penalised by carrying unneeded fuel.

No. If the cars are all fully fuelled, the drivers have to race and save tires and have to pass on the track. they'll have to drive at least part of the race in a car that isn't handling well, or save tires, else keep making tire changes.

This gives the drivers the control over their own race, not the pitwall crew. Besides, one car could be faster at one portion of the race than another. It is the speed and grip and handling differential that will make passing easier. Everyone now is on a sprint race with two different compounds of tires as a variable.

For instance, If Hamilton has the fastest car, but he chews up his tires like Halloween candy, he might lose the race due to his extra stop versus Alonso. But in this, they likely would have passed a few times when Hamilton was quicker or Alonso was quicker. That makes for a more interesting race, and it gives the suspense that often is missing in GPs.

I still stand by my idea, let them carry a mandatory minimum amount of fuel, enough not to ever worry about running out, take fuel totally out of the equation...

never have to talk about fuel = greener F1 ;)

Yes, but the problem is that they can't. I know back in the 80's/90's no refuelling forced the drivers to overtake, but we don't have that type of car in the current era. I'm not 100% convinced that the new rules will lead to overtaking. Every time this has been promised the engineers have done a great job in clawing back the downforce and making the aero so efficient that the turbelence wake returns.

I'd hold off refuelling for the time being until we get a better picture of overtaking in 2009.

If there's little or no change then races will become even more processional. At least now a driver has a chance to pip someone in the pits rather than being parked behind them for most of the race. (Can you imagine Monaco and Valencia without pit stops?).

The best solution is that if overtaking will return in force next season then keep refuelling because you'll get great on track action. More overtaking and more great pit strategies and stint performances. Imagine a driver behind 2 other drivers. Of course we want to see him overtake both but overtaking both by having a lap or two more fuel is just as impressive in my opinion because raw speed that it will take.

There is nothing wrong with refuelling. It's just that the rigs needs to be safer. They don't always come off cleanly and they should. If they did then most of the rig accidents wouldn't occur.

I don't see the benefit to banning refueling. It's almost the only area where a driver can get a jump on the opposition. The processional aspect of F1 now is beyond dull. To remove pit-stops (if the intent is to eliminate tire-changes as well) is going to make it even more of a snore. If the concern is truly safety then perhaps they need to reduce the number of crewmembers in the pit and ensure they're all in fireproof gear, eliminate the pressurized fuel fill system and go with a gravity-fed system (no not the NASCAR approach for god's sake, the IRL or CART systems worked well). If this has become an issue because of Ferrari's inability to get their pit work done properly and without incident then perhaps they need to program something into the fuel nozzle so the driver cannot leave until the nozzle is removed - some kind of interlock, something that keeps the car out of gear as an example.

Maybe if they made the length of races from 300-500km with an average of 400km length you could keep refuelling....

Ah, OK. The re-introduction.

It is sort of ironic that it was Bernie that brought it in as a tactical manoeuvre though.

You don't think that Refueling helps overtaking? With light cars coming up behind heavy cars, etc.

Maybe make the penalty for refueling more severe to force teams to refuel less.

I want GP's to be longer, closer to the two hour mark, a GP should be a marathon, but a marathon where they sprint the whole way. This isn't just any racing series this is F1, it should be the biggest, baddest, fastest sport in the world. If you want to make this a spec series, with races split up go watch any other racing series in the world, the reason people like F1 is that it is relatively unique.