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

#51 salamin

salamin
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 15:07

montoya is waaaay overrated

Advertisement

#52 wingwalker

wingwalker
  • Member

  • 6,326 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 21 December 2009 - 15:08

Mostly loads of BS. Let's see:

1. Qualifying will be more exciting

Yes, free fuel Q3 is what is all about but it could have been done simply by making teams declare fuel loads.

2. Easier to compare drivers’ performances

Yes, but only in Q3.

3. Easier to follow races at the track

I don't really get this one. Pitstops for tires will still be there and how hard is to follow a race anyway?

4. Racing will be less artificial

So a car overtaking other one because of teams have chosen to be on different strategies is 'artificial'? BS.

5. It will save the teams money

Yeah, I guess, it's gonna be also more space in the pits without the fuel rigs, more space in trucks, less stuff for team's personel to unpack, set up and pack again.. I could name 100 reasons to love anything with that logic.

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

WHAT? It's gonna mean any performance difference will come from good mileage and the tires so nursing them and hoping the guy in front will have to pit earlier will be the way to go. So it's the other way around. Complete, utter BS.

7. Race strategy will be more interesting and exciting

Erm.. so far race strategy consisted of choosing a fuel load and tire compound for a given stint. Now everyone will on the same fuel strategy so it's simply being reduced to choosing the tires. How is this 'more exciting'?. Complete BS.

8. Fairer competition

Yup, in Q3, but the possibility of both drivers wanting to stop at the same lap during the race will be bigger now so it's not quite true

9. Harder for teams to favour one driver

Same thing. Applies to Q3, not for the race.

10. More challenging for the drivers

Well the challenge is going to shift from doing 60 or so quali like laps to caring about tires more, whether it's more or less challenging it's driver preference. Slower lap times during the race will make it less challenging from physical point of view.

11. More exciting pit stops

Posted Image

Utter BS.

12. No more races ruined by rigs

True, but doesn't contradict what you just said in the previous point?

13. Improved safety

Debatable. Team members are going to be under far bigger pressure to mount the wheels and as fast as possible which might lead to loose screws. Main cause of unsafe situation in the pits: either lolly pop man or driver being impatient will be still there.

14. Overtaking will be more important

Oh yes, we all now how 2009 aero regs totally ruined racing by making overtaking so damn easy it became meaningless, kinda like in Nascar. Thankfully we're going towards even more processional races so overtaking indeed will be even more important, that's totally a reason to love refuelling ban. With the same logic propose we chop one of our hands off so we could appreciate the other one more.


Basically only good thing I agree on is free fuel Q3 which is possible without race fuel ban.

Edited by wingwalker, 22 December 2009 - 11:17.


#53 Snap Matt

Snap Matt
  • Member

  • 1,157 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 15:29

Mostly loads of BS. Let's see:
3. Easier to follow races at the track

I don't really get this one. Pitstops for tires will still be there and how hard is to follow a race anyway?

They just mean that you won't get misled by a three-stopper being ahead on track, but the two-stopper just behind them is actually doing a better job. Even if most people here understand that concept easily, commentators worry about it for the casual viewers and it's easy to lose track of fuel strategies when you're actually at a race, if you are aware of what people are doing at all.

11. More exciting pit stops

Posted Image

Utter BS.

Not at all... I'm really looking forward to the possibility of stops of four seconds or under, like we used to get pre-1994. There's less to be lost at a stop that is bound to take at least eight seconds while the fuel goes in. Their scheduling shouldn't be as predictable now either, if there isn't the problem of running out of fuel to contend with.

#54 J2NH

J2NH
  • Member

  • 1,378 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 21 December 2009 - 15:38

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.


Your argument makes the assumption that drivers currently do not attempt more passing maneuvers because the incentive to make the pass is not there.
My argument is that drivers do not make more passing maneuvers because the speed differential between the cars and the design of some of the tracks makes passing very difficult.

I actually hope you are correct but I honestly don't think things will be any better. In fact the lack of refueling is going to give teams fewer options and decrease the circumstances where a faster car (low fuel) is going to be able to pass a slower car (more fuel).

Everyone is starting on equal fuel and hard tires. No chance if you screwed up Qualifying to start light and try and punch forward. Processional until the first stop. Leader will watch the field behind and pit after the rest. Pit early and come out hard on new tires to overtake. Very difficult depending on how long it takes to warm up the tires without the warmers, and again, passing is going to be in the pits.

All of this is coupled with a point system that rewards consistency and punishes risk takers.









#55 salamin

salamin
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 15:41

just found the official FIA statement, and yeah tire warmers are still intact in 2010

#56 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 5,022 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 21 December 2009 - 15:48

Schumacher ? Senna? Mansell?


Schumacher - the guy never took a risk. It was strategy first, risk secondary.... actually tertiary.

Senna, Mansell.... im talking of the recent years.

montoya is waaaay overrated


JPM is not one of the most aggressive, ballsy overtakers in the recent years ??!!


#57 J2NH

J2NH
  • Member

  • 1,378 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 21 December 2009 - 15:49

just found the official FIA statement, and yeah tire warmers are still intact in 2010


That helps for cars pitting first. In early, fresh tires, jump a car in front. Passing in the pits but still a pass.


#58 salamin

salamin
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 15:51

JPM is not one of the most aggressive, ballsy overtakers in the recent years ??!!

aggressive yes, but it takes more than just that

#59 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 5,022 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 21 December 2009 - 15:54

aggressive yes, but it takes more than just that


to be what?

Advertisement

#60 Snap Matt

Snap Matt
  • Member

  • 1,157 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 16:01

That helps for cars pitting first. In early, fresh tires, jump a car in front. Passing in the pits but still a pass.

Of course, if they overcook it making sure that the pass in the pits works, they might leave themselves vulnerable to a pass on track by the guy that has tyres in better condition.

#61 Don_Humpador

Don_Humpador
  • Member

  • 2,223 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 16:04

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.


This is the thing, though. By still having the same stupid tyre rules as we do now, the idea of "conserving the tyres" is way overstated in my opinion. It's not like someone's going to rush off in the distance early on only to have his tyres ruined at the end of the race, because he'll just put new tyres on! Which leads me to...

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.


Agreed :up:

#62 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 16:31

This is the thing, though. By still having the same stupid tyre rules as we do now, the idea of "conserving the tyres" is way overstated in my opinion. It's not like someone's going to rush off in the distance early on only to have his tyres ruined at the end of the race, because he'll just put new tyres on! Which leads me to...



Agreed :up:




I didn't see drivers cooking tires much in 2005. In fact everyone seem to just wait till the last laps.
I'm sorry but another season were 1h and 25 min are spent just waiting is not my idea of fun or auto racing.

And this brings me to the CART Indycar argument. In 1993 CART had refueling, F1 didn't, and CART had much better racing. In 2-3 races they had more passes then F1 in an entire season.


Tires are/were already crap, it's the drivers that makes sure they're agressed and nursed well when they should and not cooked.
The only problem is, some are blind to the fact that the Badoers aren't the rule anymore.

Edited by DOF_power, 21 December 2009 - 16:34.


#63 Snap Matt

Snap Matt
  • Member

  • 1,157 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 16:39

And this brings me to the CART Indycar argument. In 1993 CART had refueling, F1 didn't, and CART had much better racing. In 2-3 races they had more passes then F1 in an entire season.

So they should sack all of the drivers and replace them with superannuated has-beens?

Ross Brawn ahead of the curve, yet again.

#64 salamin

salamin
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 16:55

to be what?


a good overtaker of course, montoya rammed numerous drivers...and got sacked mid season by mcl

#65 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 17:01

So they should sack all of the drivers and replace them with superannuated has-beens?

Ross Brawn ahead of the curve, yet again.




Well that would help, as Villeneuve said, the level of physical preparation of today vs. 20 years ago is a big reason why there's less driver mistakes and thus passes. That and slipstream tracks with no chicanes.

#66 Snap Matt

Snap Matt
  • Member

  • 1,157 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 17:03

a good overtaker of course, montoya rammed numerous drivers...and got sacked mid season by mcl

Rammed implies it was deliberate and I can't think of an example of him deliberately taking anyone out in a race situation. Some of the moves ended in tears, but you can say that about most, if not all, drivers. His exit was a fairly mutual thing too... 60:40 at worst.

#67 WACKO

WACKO
  • Member

  • 2,293 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 21 December 2009 - 19:30

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


That is a serious possibility.

#68 F1Champion

F1Champion
  • Member

  • 2,922 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 21 December 2009 - 19:39

I think there will be little or no overtaking in F1 next year, but because of the refuelling ban it will force the FIA to change the aero rules once and for all.

#69 philhitchings

philhitchings
  • Member

  • 18,214 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 21 December 2009 - 19:39

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...


agree entirely, my only caveat might be to wait till November 2010 to give a really full evauation :wave:


#70 HMV

HMV
  • Member

  • 488 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 21 December 2009 - 19:43

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.


Really? IIRC the mandatory tier change is still in place which means at least one pit stop will be in order meaning that whoever manages his tires better will still have the opportunity to overtake via said pit stop.

And, while I'd wish to be proven wrong by actual racing, this is how I believe it will happen most of the time in 2010.

Edited by HMV, 21 December 2009 - 19:44.


#71 billm99uk

billm99uk
  • Member

  • 2,887 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 21 December 2009 - 19:46

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.


Well some of us are old enough to remember what it was like BEFORE they actually had refuelling you know. And -- drum roll, please -- there wasn't that much more overtaking then either. You have to go back quite a bit further for that. Waaaaay too many "fastest-guy-qualifies-on-pole-and-disappears-into-the-distance" type races :cry:


#72 billm99uk

billm99uk
  • Member

  • 2,887 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 21 December 2009 - 19:48

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.


Kinda makes you wonder how they manage to pass in one-make series, doesn't it? Because they do, honestly - I've seen it :p

#73 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
  • Member

  • 7,670 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 21 December 2009 - 19:52

a good overtaker of course, montoya rammed numerous drivers...and got sacked mid season by mcl

like for example.. ?.

Edited by BMW_F1, 21 December 2009 - 19:52.


#74 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,149 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 19:59

like for example.. ?.


Trulli and Barichello are the only two I can think of. He was of course hit himself by numerous drivers.....

But....what a nathty nathty pieth of work JPM wath for daring to pass people rather than sit behind them. :drunk: We demand more 'follow the leader' races. :rotfl:

#75 FA and RK fan

FA and RK fan
  • Member

  • 255 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 21 December 2009 - 20:54

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.


i disagree, there should be more chances to overtake, because havier cars will have longer braking distances, also havier cars are slower around turns/corners.
Although i am not sure about narrower front tyres, cars might be more understeery and that could make them harder to follow another car through turns.

we'll see

#76 bladesblood

bladesblood
  • Member

  • 66 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 21:31

Ban tyre changes as well. I dont want to see exciting racing in the pits. Make tyres that last just the same as cars that hold enough fuel. Moto GP do it. Everyone starts with the same rules,whatever the rules.

#77 Demo.

Demo.
  • Member

  • 1,205 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 21:40

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
Rubish the cars are still different

3. Easier to follow races at the track so you have problems following the races now :rotfl:

4. Racing will be less artificial its still first past the post how is that artificial

5. It will save the teams money and of course they wont find other ways to spend it!!!

6. No more fuel-saving means they're flat out all the way So what happens when a team finds one of their drivers has used more fuel during a race than they planned and they cant refuel than? :rotfl:

7. Race strategy will be more interesting and exciting exactly how will it be more intresting after all it will just be about who can go faster for longer without worrying about coming in for fuel but they still have to come in for tyres

8. Fairer competition this is a joke Ferrari will still order one driver to be slower than the other like always

9. Harder for teams to favour one driver see above

10. More challenging for the drivers how

11. More exciting pit stops did a moron write this?

12. No more races ruined by rigs just by a wheel nut stuck or not going back on

sorry got bored by the crap at this point


Edited by Demo., 21 December 2009 - 21:43.


#78 ebeneezer2

ebeneezer2
  • Member

  • 154 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 22:45

There may not be more overtaking overall, but crucially, there should be more overtaking at the end of the races. With refuelling allowed, with e.g. 10 laps to go, everyone has done their last stop, everyone has the same fuel load, and the only difference caused by strategy are that one car has done e.g. 10 laps on its set of tyres another has done 15. That isn't enough of a difference to suggest any possibility of one car catching and passing the other. But with no refuelling, you may have one car that has tyres that are 50 laps old, being caught by one that has tyres that are only 10 laps old, and there is certainly the prospect of overtaking then. It's surely the prospect of position changes at the end of the race that are the interesting ones - rather than ones mid race that might get cancelled out by strategy anyway (which is what you get with refueling).

#79 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 23:08

i disagree, there should be more chances to overtake, because havier cars will have longer braking distances, also havier cars are slower around turns/corners.
Although i am not sure about narrower front tyres, cars might be more understeery and that could make them harder to follow another car through turns.

we'll see




Braking distances are a myth.

Advertisement

#80 midgrid

midgrid
  • Member

  • 4,680 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 23:10

Braking distances are a myth.


In general, or just in the case of heavier cars having longer ones? :lol:

I'm cautiously in favour of the refuelling ban. The way I see it, the worst that can happen is that the racing will be similar to what it has been for the last few years, and the best that can happen is the dramatic changes in handling caused by the decreasing fuel load over the race distance and greater freedom to experiment with tyre strategies making on-track overtaking easier. Of course, low-fuel qualifying and pole positions on merit alone are also things to anticipate eagerly.

Edited by midgrid, 21 December 2009 - 23:14.


#81 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 23:13

In general, or just in the case of heavier cars having longer ones? :lol:




In that, in the old days the slower driver would let the faster one behind pass.
Hill and Bandini in Mexico 64 and Monaco 67 showcased what happened when the driver in front did got out of the way.

It doesn't matter how long the braking distances are, the must be considerable gaps and the driver in front must not block.

#82 midgrid

midgrid
  • Member

  • 4,680 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 21 December 2009 - 23:19

In that, in the old days the slower driver would let the faster one behind pass.
Hill and Bandini in Mexico 64 and Monaco 67 showcased what happened when the driver in front did got out of the way.

It doesn't matter how long the braking distances are, the must be considerable gaps and the driver in front must not block.


Ah, I see. I disagree with you on the issue of the length of braking distances not being important, as with longer braking distances, any discrepancy between two cars' braking performance will be amplified, making it easier for a chasing driver to attempt an outbraking manoeuvre. The driver in front is not allowed (or there is a gentlemen's agreement which amounts to the same thing) to change direction in the braking zone, and it is possible to pass using unfavourable lines in a corner. In fact, if a driver defending his position does block, he is usually obliged to move off-line, giving his opponent an advantage in the braking zone which can be used to overtake around the outside, or set up a conclusive move in the following corner if the track layout allows it.


#83 pspidey

pspidey
  • Member

  • 339 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 22 December 2009 - 01:34

Your argument makes the assumption that drivers currently do not attempt more passing maneuvers because the incentive to make the pass is not there.
My argument is that drivers do not make more passing maneuvers because the speed differential between the cars and the design of some of the tracks makes passing very difficult.

I actually hope you are correct but I honestly don't think things will be any better. In fact the lack of refueling is going to give teams fewer options and decrease the circumstances where a faster car (low fuel) is going to be able to pass a slower car (more fuel).

Everyone is starting on equal fuel and hard tires. No chance if you screwed up Qualifying to start light and try and punch forward. Processional until the first stop. Leader will watch the field behind and pit after the rest. Pit early and come out hard on new tires to overtake. Very difficult depending on how long it takes to warm up the tires without the warmers, and again, passing is going to be in the pits.

All of this is coupled with a point system that rewards consistency and punishes risk takers.


J2NH, you're distorting my argument a bit, by making it black and white - I didn't say that there is *no* incentive to pass. I said that there are circumstances where if a driver can rely on passing in the pits they will do so rather than attempt a risky overtaking move.

Sure there is always some incentive to pass - after all even if you've only got two laps to your pitstop and will overtake from fuel advantage, you still have *some* incentive to pass, since the earlier you pass the further ahead you can get, the better chance you have of catching other drivers etc. etc.

The point remains - a driver is more likely to take the risk, because his incentive just got bigger - he can't rely on passing via fuel advantage, and therefore the *only* way they can usually pass is on the track, no matter how borderline they are to the required speed differential and consequently how risky the pass may be.

It comes down to the risk being the same but the incentive being greater. Therefore it can only help. How much remains to be seen. Probably not drastically, but like I've mentioned before I think banning refueling may help overtaking in other ways.

Edited by pspidey, 22 December 2009 - 01:36.


#84 pspidey

pspidey
  • Member

  • 339 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 22 December 2009 - 01:38

In general, or just in the case of heavier cars having longer ones? :lol:

I'm cautiously in favour of the refuelling ban. The way I see it, the worst that can happen is that the racing will be similar to what it has been for the last few years, and the best that can happen is the dramatic changes in handling caused by the decreasing fuel load over the race distance and greater freedom to experiment with tyre strategies making on-track overtaking easier. Of course, low-fuel qualifying and pole positions on merit alone are also things to anticipate eagerly.


+1 :up: :up: :up:

Which (IMO) is precisely the reason that old time F1 fans like myself are in favor of it - been around long enough to remember how much more fun it was without dumbass refueling.

#85 pspidey

pspidey
  • Member

  • 339 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 22 December 2009 - 01:41

Well some of us are old enough to remember what it was like BEFORE they actually had refuelling you know. And -- drum roll, please -- there wasn't that much more overtaking then either. You have to go back quite a bit further for that. Waaaaay too many "fastest-guy-qualifies-on-pole-and-disappears-into-the-distance" type races :cry:


That's not my recollection ;) and I've been watching for a decent amount of time - since around 85.

I guess perception is reality.


#86 pspidey

pspidey
  • Member

  • 339 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 22 December 2009 - 01:45

Kinda makes you wonder how they manage to pass in one-make series, doesn't it? Because they do, honestly - I've seen it :p


They should come up with a 'Inverse KERS'!...

Each driver can press a button to make the car in front lose 50hp for upto 6 seconds during a lap ;)

(obviously kidding... but given some of the half assed ideas pushed by Mosley/Bernie in the past surprised they've not come up with it)

#87 Willow Rosenberg

Willow Rosenberg
  • Member

  • 355 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 01:47

In that, in the old days the slower driver would let the faster one behind pass.
Hill and Bandini in Mexico 64 and Monaco 67 showcased what happened when the driver in front did got out of the way.

It doesn't matter how long the braking distances are, the must be considerable gaps and the driver in front must not block.


That doesn't prove much. Most overtaking happens under braking for slow corners, because thats where braking distances are longest. Its quite simple.

#88 pspidey

pspidey
  • Member

  • 339 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 22 December 2009 - 01:52

This is the thing, though. By still having the same stupid tyre rules as we do now, the idea of "conserving the tyres" is way overstated in my opinion. It's not like someone's going to rush off in the distance early on only to have his tyres ruined at the end of the race, because he'll just put new tyres on! Which leads me to...



Agreed :up:


Yeah, they do need to get rid of the stupid forced tire change rules, particularly with the 'must use both hard and soft tires' rule nonsense. Here's hoping they get rid of that sooner rather than later.

#89 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,865 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 22 December 2009 - 08:25

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


lol, if anything the opposite is going to happen.


#90 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 09:43

+1 :up: :up: :up:

Which (IMO) is precisely the reason that old time F1 fans like myself are in favor of it - been around long enough to remember how much more fun it was without dumbass refueling.




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.

#91 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 09:51

That doesn't prove much. Most overtaking happens under braking for slow corners, because thats where braking distances are longest. Its quite simple.




Only if the driver in front leaves an opening to the driver behind. And drivers use to do that for most part.
But Bandini proved you can block and chop, and it led to both him Hill being taken out at Mexico City in '64; then Hill payed him back at Monaco in '67 and blocked him for most of the race. This frustration and fatigue is what led Bandini to his fatal mistake.

Blocking drivers + small gaps + Monaco style chicane filled tracks = little to no passing regardless of the cars and their braking distances.


After the TC ban and the return of the slicks I would have thought people would have stopped coming up with this "it's gonna get better" B*.
Things will stay the same or more likely will get worse, and they will never ever gonna get any better.
So deal with it.


#92 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,669 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 22 December 2009 - 10:01

some changes work, double file restarts really saved nascar for example

#93 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,304 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 22 December 2009 - 10:02

After the TC ban and the return of the slicks I would have thought people would have stopped coming up with this "it's gonna get better" B*.
Things will stay the same or more likely will get worse, and they will never ever gonna get any better.
So deal with it.

What an awful, "I'm grumpy and pessimistic and everybody else is wrong" attitude to take.

There's absolutely no reason why it *cant* get better.

And getting rid of refueling may not suddenly bring back the glory days of F1, but its certainly a step in the right direction.

Edited by Seanspeed, 22 December 2009 - 10:03.


#94 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 10:13

What an awful, "I'm grumpy and pessimistic and everybody else is wrong" attitude to take.

There's absolutely no reason why it *cant* get better.

And getting rid of refueling may not suddenly bring back the glory days of F1, but its certainly a step in the right direction.




It's just objective reality check.

Hint, the truth will NOT set you free, most of the time the truth will only make you feel bad and/or make things worse.

Where are the slipstream tracks, the gentlemen drivers and the equivalent cars with significant sector gaps for the racing to improve ?!
Answer, nowhere is sight.

Edited by DOF_power, 22 December 2009 - 10:22.


#95 Red 5

Red 5
  • Member

  • 610 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 10:20

It will be interesting to see if Cosworth are developing their engine for outright power or if there will be more value in fuel economy.
If a car holds 50 gallons and they can squeeze out an extra 1 mile per gallon then the weight saving would really count.

#96 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 22 December 2009 - 11:10

Things will stay the same or more likely will get worse, and they will never ever gonna get any better.
So deal with it.


Things aint what they used to be.

Cry me a river :lol:

#97 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 11:39

Things aint what they used to be.

Cry me a river :lol:




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.


Posted Image
Posted Image

Edited by DOF_power, 22 December 2009 - 11:43.


#98 salamin

salamin
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 11:56

I guess it's because the differences between the cars are getting smaller due to the recent changes

#99 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 11:58

From cliptheapex.com



Posted Image
Posted Image



And BTW in 1983 the was refueling, from 84 to 93 it was banned.
Yet in 83 there was more passing then 96, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93.

So historically, with rule changes, things either stay the same, or more often then not they get worse.

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. "




The overtaking figures for each race do not include:

* Position changes on the first lap of the race
* Position changes due to drivers lapping backmarkers
* Positions gained in the pits
* Positions gained when a car has a serious technical problem; e.g. puncture, accident damage, etc.

Edited by DOF_power, 22 December 2009 - 12:28.


Advertisement

#100 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 December 2009 - 12:00

I guess it's because the differences between the cars are getting smaller due to the recent changes




Bingo, that and the fact that drivers block-n-chop and the tracks are stuffed with chicanes and single file sectors.