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.