Jump to content


Photo

14 reasons to love the refuelling ban (merged)


  • Please log in to reply
171 replies to this topic

Poll: 14 reasons to love the refuelling ban (merged) (198 member(s) have cast votes)

Refueling ban...

  1. ...Pro (123 votes [62.12%])

    Percentage of vote: 62.12%

  2. ...Contra (39 votes [19.70%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.70%

  3. ...Uncertain (36 votes [18.18%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.18%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 salamin

salamin
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 20 December 2009 - 21:38

Found an interesting read on F1Fanatic about the advantages of the refuelling ban.



1. Qualifying will be more exciting

2. Easier to compare drivers’ performances

3. Easier to follow races at the track

4. Racing will be less artificial

5. It will save the teams money

6. No more fuel-saving means they’re flat out all the way

7. Race strategy will be more interesting and exciting

8. Fairer competition

9. Harder for teams to favour one driver

10. More challenging for the drivers

11. More exciting pit stops

12. No more races ruined by rigs

13. Improved safety

14. Overtaking will be more important


Edited by salamin, 20 December 2009 - 23:12.
Please do not post full articles as it breaches copyright


Advertisement

#2 dimoose

dimoose
  • Member

  • 67 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 20 December 2009 - 21:41

1 less variable = More boring races.

#3 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 20 December 2009 - 21:43

1 less variable = More boring races.




A.k.a. even less overtaking.
1] BS
.
.
14] BS


Edited by DOF_power, 20 December 2009 - 21:44.


#4 patgaw

patgaw
  • Member

  • 504 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 20 December 2009 - 21:46

yep, article is BS.
and refuelling ban is not best idea. races will be boing, as there will be less overtaking during pit stop.
overtaking on track will stay same.

#5 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,142 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 20 December 2009 - 21:49

I know: Why don't we wait until about 15:00 UK Time on Sunday, 14th March, 2010 before saying 'banning refuelling is/was a bad idea'? Such a revolutionary thought, I know...

Edited by D.M.N., 20 December 2009 - 21:50.


#6 gillymuse

gillymuse
  • Member

  • 312 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 20 December 2009 - 21:49

I'm going to like the refuelling ban because you are going to have to overtake to get anywhere and not rely on just staying behind someone because you are going a few laps longer than them and overtaking them at the pitstops, that's not real racing to me.

#7 salamin

salamin
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 20 December 2009 - 21:51

updated it with a poll

#8 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 20 December 2009 - 22:02

I know: Why don't we wait until about 15:00 UK Time on Sunday, 14th March, 2010 before saying 'banning refuelling is/was a bad idea'? Such a revolutionary thought, I know...




Because refueling was allowed and banned over and over again, and it didn't change anything for the better.
Nurburgring '57 would have been dull without refueling, and it became a bore-fest with the refueling ban starting from 58.

#9 Brawn BGP 001

Brawn BGP 001
  • Member

  • 2,568 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 20 December 2009 - 22:04

I know: Why don't we wait until about 15:00 UK Time on Sunday, 14th March, 2010 before saying 'banning refuelling is/was a bad idea'? Such a revolutionary thought, I know...

That logic is too advanced for this forum.

#10 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,003 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 20 December 2009 - 22:24

No refuelling and a tyre war would be fantastic, because the Bridgestones are just too good- nobody has any trouble making them last (except for Vettel in Monaco!).



#11 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,171 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 20 December 2009 - 23:09

I know: Why don't we wait until about 15:00 UK Time on Sunday, 14th March, 2010 before saying 'banning refuelling is/was a bad idea'? Such a revolutionary thought, I know...

:up:

The poll is obviously missing a third option....

#12 Mauseri

Mauseri
  • Member

  • 7,488 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 20 December 2009 - 23:12

I like the refuelling ban, but the effect of safety car on the race will be unfortunately dirtier now again :(

Who was the lucky who already changed tyres... if only tyre change wasn't compulsory!

Edited by Bianchimont, 20 December 2009 - 23:17.


#13 salamin

salamin
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 20 December 2009 - 23:18

I like the refuelling ban, but the effect of safety car on the race will be unfortunately dirtier now again :(

Who was the lucky who already changed tyres...


i hardly believe anybody would try that again after singapore 08

#14 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,210 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 20 December 2009 - 23:23

Because refueling was allowed and banned over and over again, and it didn't change anything for the better.
Nurburgring '57 would have been dull without refueling, and it became a bore-fest with the refueling ban starting from 58.


You are comparing a time when a pitstop was measured in minutes to now, when it's measured in seconds, and trying to claim refueling was the difference. Absolute nonsense.

#15 pspidey

pspidey
  • Member

  • 339 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 20 December 2009 - 23:30

Personally, as a long time F1 watcher, I've never thought that the introduction of refueling improved races.

I'd argue banning refueling should improve races because:
1. It will increase the performance delta between drivers/cars at different points in the race. An aggressive driver may gain advantage earlier on, only to be reeled in later when another driver's tires last better from better conservation.
2. Where at all possible, it's an extra incentive to pass on the track since faster drivers are less able to use the risk averse 'pass in the pits' tactic.
3. More exciting pit stops ... I remember how much more exciting pit stops were, when the tire change was the dominant time factor for pit stops. Presently, this factor is marginalized as refueling almost always takes longer than the tire change. When you have two cars fighting each other and they come in for a pit stop, and it's all down to which of the two teams can do the absolute fastest error-free tire change, that's pretty darn exciting. At the moment, when this happens it's usually more down to which of the two teams chooses (or has to) put more fuel in than the other. In relative terms 'BORING!'

I've never understood the argument that refueling is more exciting because it allows drivers to overtake in the pits. Surely what you want is on track passing?

I don't expect the refueling ban to make a massive difference to the number of on track overtaking moves, but I can't see how it could do anything other than help (at least a little) for the above reasons.

One thing that does come to mind though, is that I think there should be just one type of tire, and that there should be none of this arbitrary 'use both tire type' rules. The tires should however be designed to only last about 1/2 to 2/3 of a race so that tire degradation and tire management is a significant race factor.

Edited by pspidey, 20 December 2009 - 23:32.


#16 gerry nassar

gerry nassar
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,880 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 20 December 2009 - 23:32

I agree lets wait and see. But on the points....

I question this....

6. No more fuel-saving means they’re flat out all the way


#17 Jay101

Jay101
  • Member

  • 614 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 20 December 2009 - 23:40

When refueling was brought in it did nothing for the sport IMO so to take it away won't do a lot either, so if it makes the sport cheaper for the teams that need to penny pinch then great.
I do like the fact that drivers races won't be demolished because someone can't get the freaking fuel hose on though.

#18 pspidey

pspidey
  • Member

  • 339 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 20 December 2009 - 23:41

Found an interesting read on F1Fanatic about the advantages of the refuelling ban.


My favorite in that list:

9. Harder for teams to favour one driver

There is no question there is always one fuel strategy that is superior to another – even if the difference is only a lap here or there.

Without refuelling it’s going to be a lot harder to have those “Team X always favours Driver Y” arguments in 2010.


God, that'll be awesome. Fanboy douchebags will have to come up with some other conspiracy theory. Probably take 'em a few minutes  ;)

#19 slideways

slideways
  • Member

  • 3,194 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 December 2009 - 23:45

They will still be making stops and coming out on cold tyres which means there will still be a lot of focus on passing via pit stops.

Advertisement

#20 dabrasco

dabrasco
  • Member

  • 2,170 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 20 December 2009 - 23:45

I agree lets wait and see. But on the points....

I question this....

6. No more fuel-saving means they’re flat out all the way


yea... i reckon some drivers will have to carry more fuel than normal to to suit their driving style and be flat out all the way....


im going to wait til the season is halfway b4 i see if the refuelling ban has helped or not


my big fear is we could end up with even worse races than recent especially if bridgestone doesn't provide decent tires, you could easily have the whole field driving conservatively trying to make the tires last thereby canceling each other out i.e. gigantic snorefest processional racing .....

anyways, we shall see

Edited by dabrasco, 20 December 2009 - 23:48.


#21 salamin

salamin
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 20 December 2009 - 23:47

They will still be making stops and coming out on cold tyres which means there will still be a lot of focus on passing via pit stops.


but its way harder to predict when the pilots will pit

#22 Mungo Fangio of the Year

Mungo Fangio of the Year
  • Member

  • 565 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 20 December 2009 - 23:47

I'd remove tyre changes also, and try to introduce ways to help overtaking.


#23 Mauseri

Mauseri
  • Member

  • 7,488 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 20 December 2009 - 23:50

i hardly believe anybody would try that again after singapore 08

I meant just that the safety car, and tyre rules are dirty by themselves, adding luck factor to the sport.

#24 J2NH

J2NH
  • Member

  • 1,377 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 20 December 2009 - 23:55

I do not accept the the notion that it will force drivers to pass on the track. My opinion is that they would pass on the track if they could but they can't because of either the lack of speed differential between the cars and some of the tracks themselves. I predict we will see no increase in passing on the track and what passing there is will take place, for the most part, during the mandatory tire changes.

Does anyone know if the ban on tire warmers starts in 10?

#25 salamin

salamin
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 20 December 2009 - 23:55

I meant just that the safety car, and tyre rules are dirty by themselves, adding luck factor to the sport.


well theoreticaly it will be even easier to play that cheat

#26 salamin

salamin
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 20 December 2009 - 23:56

Does anyone know if the ban on tire warmers starts in 10?

yes

#27 Jay101

Jay101
  • Member

  • 614 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 20 December 2009 - 23:58

Unfortunatly I do feel as though some of the benifits of no refueling is wasted with that dumb arse idea of having to use two different tyre compounds since with using a hard compound for a driver who conserves rubber well can go for a one stopper which would make for an interesting race against those doing 3 stints on soft rubber.

Edited by Jay101, 21 December 2009 - 00:03.


#28 domhnall

domhnall
  • Member

  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 20 December 2009 - 23:59

yes


I thought the ban was scrapped. Maybe i'm wrong.

#29 Jay101

Jay101
  • Member

  • 614 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 00:04

I thought the ban was scrapped. Maybe i'm wrong.

I thought it was scraped too, on the grounds of safety.

#30 salamin

salamin
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 00:07

I thought the ban was scrapped. Maybe i'm wrong.


found this article by autoevolution (from 8th december)

...
That measure was also taken because of the refueling ban introduced by the International Automobile Federation (FIA) for the upcoming campaign, as the force applied to the rear tires by the heavier loads will be greater as compared to last season. In addition, thinner front tires will make it easier for the drivers to get their slicks up to temperature when leaving the pits, as tire warmers will also be banned for the 2010 season.
...



#31 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,210 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 21 December 2009 - 00:18

found this article by autoevolution (from 8th december)


The article is wrong. Tyre warmers are still in the 2010 rules.

#32 pspidey

pspidey
  • Member

  • 339 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 21 December 2009 - 00:18

Found an interesting read on F1Fanatic about the advantages of the refuelling ban.


Here's one they missed:

Nervous tension all the way to the end... Did the team cut it too close on fuel? Will the leading drivers run out of fuel within sight of the finish line?


Couple of great 'running out of fuel' moments..:





#33 J2NH

J2NH
  • Member

  • 1,377 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 21 December 2009 - 00:19

Thanks salamin.

or not :drunk:

Edited by J2NH, 21 December 2009 - 00:20.


#34 Les

Les
  • Member

  • 2,060 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 00:26

I can't think of any reason why getting rid of refuelling won't be positive for F1 at last we will have real races and not sprints. Please no mandatory tyre stops though 'to spice things up' that would be a disaster.

#35 pspidey

pspidey
  • Member

  • 339 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 21 December 2009 - 00:30

I do not accept the the notion that it will force drivers to pass on the track. My opinion is that they would pass on the track if they could but they can't because of either the lack of speed differential between the cars and some of the tracks themselves. I predict we will see no increase in passing on the track and what passing there is will take place, for the most part, during the mandatory tire changes.

Does anyone know if the ban on tire warmers starts in 10?


A thought experiment...:

1. Two drivers, one closely following the other. The trailing driver knows that the driver in front has less fuel on board, and has been advised of such by his team.
Q. Does he risk attempting to overtake?

2. Two drivers, one closely following the other. There is no refueling and therefore he cannot overtake via fuel differential.
Q. Does he risk attempting to overtake?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it's going to make a massive difference in the number of overtaking passes since aerodynamic issues still make it so you *usually* have to have a fairly large differential to make it 'easier' to pass.

However, at the moment, the drivers often have an active disincentive to pass, it will at least get rid of that, so for these occasions, you should see less driving by percentages. Another example, might be a driver contesting the WDC - in a race where they might normally rely on overtaking other cars via fuel advantage and thus avoiding a no-score in a challenge for the WDC, they are more likely to have to force the issue on track, and attempt passes.



#36 Psymon

Psymon
  • Member

  • 725 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 21 December 2009 - 01:33

I know: Why don't we wait until about 15:00 UK Time on Sunday, 14th March, 2010 before saying 'banning refuelling is/was a bad idea'? Such a revolutionary thought, I know...


I would say that one race won't really be enough to assess the effects of the refuelling ban. The first race may give us an idea but it won't necessarily show the way things are going to go for the rest of the season. Also it might take time for the teams to work out the best tyre strategies to use, which might artificially make races seem more interesting until they get used to the new regulations with people getting it wrong.

I do not accept the the notion that it will force drivers to pass on the track. My opinion is that they would pass on the track if they could but they can't because of either the lack of speed differential between the cars and some of the tracks themselves. I predict we will see no increase in passing on the track and what passing there is will take place, for the most part, during the mandatory tire changes.


I'd agree with this. People say that the fuel pit stops reduce the incentive to pass because they know the car in front will get out of the way soon... there may be some truth to that, however... what about the times that drivers have had their race ruined by getting stuck behind a car that's heavier on fuel? Surely that has to have been an incentive to pass, and if they couldn't manage it with a lighter/faster car, how will it improve when the cars are on essentially the same fuel loads?

Of course I would be perfectly happy to end up being proved wrong and for the overtaking to increase, but at this time I cannot see it happening.

#37 J2NH

J2NH
  • Member

  • 1,377 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 21 December 2009 - 01:55

A thought experiment...:

1. Two drivers, one closely following the other. The trailing driver knows that the driver in front has less fuel on board, and has been advised of such by his team.
Q. Does he risk attempting to overtake?

2. Two drivers, one closely following the other. There is no refueling and therefore he cannot overtake via fuel differential.
Q. Does he risk attempting to overtake?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it's going to make a massive difference in the number of overtaking passes since aerodynamic issues still make it so you *usually* have to have a fairly large differential to make it 'easier' to pass.

However, at the moment, the drivers often have an active disincentive to pass, it will at least get rid of that, so for these occasions, you should see less driving by percentages. Another example, might be a driver contesting the WDC - in a race where they might normally rely on overtaking other cars via fuel advantage and thus avoiding a no-score in a challenge for the WDC, they are more likely to have to force the issue on track, and attempt passes.


If they could pass they would. They are racers and as such the incentive for them is always to pass. It works out that it happens in the pits because it can't take place on the track. Overtaking Working Group stated that you needed a minimum of 1 second per lap speed differential and the ability to follow closely to even have a hope at passing. Rules changes, engine and aero, have narrowed the differential and made the possibility of passing worse than before.

If you accept that drivers have an active disincentive to pass, the reason, the scoring system that rewards consistency and punishes risk taking of any kind, is still in place.

Hope I'm wrong but right now I'm of the opinion that low fuel qualifying will be more exciting than the race.










#38 salamin

salamin
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 01:57

there will be generally less overtaking due to lack of kers

#39 pspidey

pspidey
  • Member

  • 339 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 21 December 2009 - 02:23

If they could pass they would. They are racers and as such the incentive for them is always to pass. It works out that it happens in the pits because it can't take place on the track. Overtaking Working Group stated that you needed a minimum of 1 second per lap speed differential and the ability to follow closely to even have a hope at passing. Rules changes, engine and aero, have narrowed the differential and made the possibility of passing worse than before.

If you accept that drivers have an active disincentive to pass, the reason, the scoring system that rewards consistency and punishes risk taking of any kind, is still in place.

Hope I'm wrong but right now I'm of the opinion that low fuel qualifying will be more exciting than the race.


But racers don't always have an incentive to pass... that's the point - particularly if they're racing for points in the WDC, there's a disincentive to risk an overtaking move when they know they can get them via fuel difference. Are you saying you've never seen a driver hang back with the knowledge that they can get them on fuel difference. For me that simply isn't consistent with observations of what drivers do, or what they say when talking about a race... It's not unusual for drivers to talk about conserving fuel or hanging back to manage their tires.

The fact that you need such a big differential in order to make overtaking is no doubt a bigger factor, but each contributes to the entirety. Even if you need a one second differential - let's say your differential is borderline, are racing for WDC, and are hesitant to have a crash, ... well if you know you're going to get them at the stop because of a fuel difference, a smart racer (as most of them are) would wait it out. How can that be anything other than a disincentive?

Edited by pspidey, 21 December 2009 - 02:28.


Advertisement

#40 J2NH

J2NH
  • Member

  • 1,377 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 21 December 2009 - 03:21

But racers don't always have an incentive to pass... that's the point - particularly if they're racing for points in the WDC, there's a disincentive to risk an overtaking move when they know they can get them via fuel difference. Are you saying you've never seen a driver hang back with the knowledge that they can get them on fuel difference. For me that simply isn't consistent with observations of what drivers do, or what they say when talking about a race... It's not unusual for drivers to talk about conserving fuel or hanging back to manage their tires.

The fact that you need such a big differential in order to make overtaking is no doubt a bigger factor, but each contributes to the entirety. Even if you need a one second differential - let's say your differential is borderline, are racing for WDC, and are hesitant to have a crash, ... well if you know you're going to get them at the stop because of a fuel difference, a smart racer (as most of them are) would wait it out. How can that be anything other than a disincentive?


No good race car driver is going to take needless risk. We have all seen what happens when they are too far back, brake too late up the inside and side punch the driver they are attempting to "pass". The fact is that the smart driver does what he has to do to get in front and when he can't he saves his tires and goes for a pass in the pits cause that's all their is.
You need the speed differential and it has to come at the right place on the track. 1 second is a minimum and those differentials don't exist in F1. Add to that the fact that you can't follow because of the dirty air and I don't think the "will" of the driver to want to pass is going to overcome the reality of the situation.
Now toss in the point system that heavily penalizes a DNF and we will get processional racing in 10.
I am second, do I throw it all away to make a desperate pass for first and risk a DNF or take the points and wait for the next race. They will wait.

I don't necessarily want more passing in F1 but I would like to see the reasonable possibility of passing and that is probably going to have to wait for some real changes in the aero rules. Again, I hope I am wrong but I don't think removing refueling is going to make the racing better.



#41 pspidey

pspidey
  • Member

  • 339 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 21 December 2009 - 04:00

No good race car driver is going to take needless risk. We have all seen what happens when they are too far back, brake too late up the inside and side punch the driver they are attempting to "pass". The fact is that the smart driver does what he has to do to get in front and when he can't he saves his tires and goes for a pass in the pits cause that's all their is.
You need the speed differential and it has to come at the right place on the track. 1 second is a minimum and those differentials don't exist in F1. Add to that the fact that you can't follow because of the dirty air and I don't think the "will" of the driver to want to pass is going to overcome the reality of the situation.
Now toss in the point system that heavily penalizes a DNF and we will get processional racing in 10.
I am second, do I throw it all away to make a desperate pass for first and risk a DNF or take the points and wait for the next race. They will wait.

I don't necessarily want more passing in F1 but I would like to see the reasonable possibility of passing and that is probably going to have to wait for some real changes in the aero rules. Again, I hope I am wrong but I don't think removing refueling is going to make the racing better.


Which is exactly my logic. (Scratches head)... so, unless you are significantly faster (fast enough for it not to be borderline and for you to be confident you can make a pass stick, and stick safely), and you know you're going to be able to pass via the pits and fuel differential, you will wait it out (all things being equal). Particularly if you only have a few laps to go to your pitstop.

Take this factor away, and the risk/reward equation changes. If I can't pass via fuel advantage, the risk remains the same, but the reward increases (potentially the driver loses not just one position but multiple by remaining stuck behind the one driver).

It can only improve this equation, providing a greater incentive to take on risk. It doesn't help with the risk part (e.g. aerodynamic destabilization, lack of grip etc. from following a modern F1 car) but it helps with incentive.

Will it be noticeable? There you might have an argument - I don't think it's a massive factor that will have us all of a sudden stunned with the number of F1 overtaking moves. However, just from logic, I can't see how it does anything but help.


BTW, there is a different factor that I think is much more likely to be a positive for overtaking, and much more noticeable - that is, that there will be larger differences in speed at different times of the race between drivers according to how their tires are holding up. Obviously the bigger differentials should help ameliorate the aerodynamic issues.

Edited by pspidey, 21 December 2009 - 04:04.


#42 apoka

apoka
  • Member

  • 3,482 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 07:04

The refuelling ban could be a good idea, but only without mandatory tyre changes. Tyre handling should be an issue, so Bridgestone shouldn't produce undestroyable tyres to the races. Fewer and less predictable pit stops are, in my opinion, a good idea and increase the incentive for overtaking. I would also welcome KERS, but with higher or no limits. (I never understood why they did not make it mandatory or at least design the rules in such a way that there is a clear advantage for KERS cars. The discussion about whether or not to use KERS has started way before the first race in 2009.)

On the other hand, I can also understand everyone who is afraid of borefests. I can see that happening at a number of tracks. However, if that happens I hope the involved working groups will modify the rules to make overtaking easier (double diffusor etc.) instead of introducing pit stops again (that would be as wrong as banning KERS).

#43 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 4,748 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 21 December 2009 - 08:31

I wonder howcome people on this forum a) dislike the fact that most overtaking is done through strategic pit stops, and b) dislike the ban on refuelling, too.

Because of the refuelling ban, the most important way to move up the ranks during a Grand Prix is -- drum roll, please -- by overtaking the car in front.

Sure, with proper qualifying returning, the quickest car will be on pole position, but it isn't said that the quickest car on fumes is the quickest car in race trim, carrying, say 190 litres of fuel, not to mention that quickest driver being able to manage his car and tyres the best throughout the entire race.

#44 SPBHM

SPBHM
  • Member

  • 806 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 08:36

it's quite ok, but they should change the tyre rules to,

#45 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 13,971 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 21 December 2009 - 08:39

I do not accept the the notion that it will force drivers to pass on the track. My opinion is that they would pass on the track if they could but they can't because of either the lack of speed differential between the cars and some of the tracks themselves. I predict we will see no increase in passing on the track and what passing there is will take place, for the most part, during the mandatory tire changes.

Does anyone know if the ban on tire warmers starts in 10?

Indeed; just because the need to overtake will increase it doesn't mean that the difficulty of doing so will decrease. I fear the real result may be even more processional races and/or more crashes as frustrated drivers make desperate lunges. What's STILL needed is alterations to car regs that make following a car very closely more possible.

#46 slideways

slideways
  • Member

  • 3,194 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 09:09

The thing it will eliminate is the way we see drivers being told not to waste fuel on overtaking attempts and going into conservation mode, so they can pull an extra 2-3 laps on the guy in front in that stint. It really did happen an awful lot this year especially up the front of the grid for the first 2 stints.

#47 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 4,748 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 21 December 2009 - 09:11

it's quite ok, but they should change the tyre rules to,

Hear hear.

#48 Snap Matt

Snap Matt
  • Member

  • 1,157 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 14:36

it's quite ok, but they should change the tyre rules to,

I agree. Perhaps with Bridgestone leaving the sport at the end of next season the rules on tyres will change and they won't insist on using both compounds during a race.

#49 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 5,018 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 21 December 2009 - 14:54

Please dont classify all of them as 'racers who overtake everytime'. Only few drivers stand out in the past few years for trying their max at overtaking............ JPM and Hamilton.

#50 Hypnotise

Hypnotise
  • Member

  • 1,245 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 15:02

Please dont classify all of them as 'racers who overtake everytime'. Only few drivers stand out in the past few years for trying their max at overtaking............ JPM and Hamilton.

Schumacher ? Senna? Mansell?