Jump to content


Photo

Do you miss refuelling in Formula 1?


  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

Poll: Do you want refuelling back into F1? (390 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you want refuelling back into F1?

  1. Yes (134 votes [34.36%])

    Percentage of vote: 34.36%

  2. No (217 votes [55.64%])

    Percentage of vote: 55.64%

  3. Don't mind (39 votes [10.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.00%

Does it look pathetic seeing F1 cars race close to 10 s off the pace at some tracks?

  1. Yes (125 votes [32.05%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.05%

  2. No (192 votes [49.23%])

    Percentage of vote: 49.23%

  3. Don't bother (73 votes [18.72%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.72%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 jeze

jeze
  • Member

  • 2,973 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 12 September 2012 - 22:08

At Monza early on in the race top cars ran around at 1:31. In qualifying most drivers easily ran 1:24 over one lap.

In race conditions, the cars look castrated creatures - essentially like upgraded Champ Cars from the mid-90's. They are just trying to preserve the tyres because they're worn quicker on high fuel. As such it means that the teams spend gazillions to develop the most awesome cars on the planet only for them to race at essentially walking speed.

I'd like to have refuelling back and playing the part with sensitive tyres, KERS and DRS to create races where drivers are really willing to push for 190 miles which would entertain viewers all around. I'd rather watch cars being driven closer to the limit while at the same time having to conserve tyres and thinking about how many stops they'd need.

Bring it back I say. I really miss those awesome fuel mileage duels when cars couldn't overtake. (Schumacher vs Alonso at Imola 2006, Räikkönen vs Alonso Silverstone 2007) Imagine them when cars CAN overtake these days?

Edited by jeze, 12 September 2012 - 22:10.


Advertisement

#2 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 12 September 2012 - 22:19

No, refueling spread out the field and made strategy too important.

If it's pathetic to watch the cars go slowly then they should improve the tires.

Though I think the lap times are fine, in fact the cars should be slowed down more. How are people supposed to outbrake each other when the braking zone is 50m long?

#3 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,205 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 12 September 2012 - 22:28

Bring it back I say. I really miss those awesome fuel mileage duels when cars couldn't overtake. (Schumacher vs Alonso at Imola 2006, Räikkönen vs Alonso Silverstone 2007) Imagine them when cars CAN overtake these days?



Refuelling is an invention of the 90s and perverted the original spirit of F1 (which ran from 1950 to the 1990s and since 2010 in the classic non-refuelling set up).
Many strategic elements got lost with refueling, as did the sublime capability to manage the car and it's changing weight over the length of a whole race.

The result of refuelling was the segmentation of an F1 race into two or three sprint races, which benefited specific drivers but did not keep with the original spirit of F1. Good riddance!

Edited by aditya-now, 12 September 2012 - 22:29.


#4 maximilian

maximilian
  • Member

  • 482 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 12 September 2012 - 22:31

Refuelling is an invention of the 90s and perverted the original spirit of F1 (which ran from 1950 to the 1990s and since 2010 in the classic non-refuelling set up).
Many strategic elements got lost with refueling, as did the sublime capability to manage the car and it's changing weight over the length of a whole race.

The result of refuelling was the segmentation of an F1 race into two or three sprint races, which benefited specific drivers but did not keep with the original spirit of F1. Good riddance!



Exactly! Refueling in F1 is an abomination. I wish they would get rid of mandated pit stops altogether.

#5 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,687 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 September 2012 - 22:43

Refuelling is an invention of the 90s and perverted the original spirit of F1 (which ran from 1950 to the 1990s and since 2010 in the classic non-refuelling set up).
Many strategic elements got lost with refueling, as did the sublime capability to manage the car and it's changing weight over the length of a whole race.

The result of refuelling was the segmentation of an F1 race into two or three sprint races, which benefited specific drivers but did not keep with the original spirit of F1. Good riddance!


Such nonsense. Brabham "invented" it in 1982, and the only reason it wasn't used earlier is because teams hadn't worked out that there was an advantage in running a lighter car that would overcome the time lost. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the origional spirit,


#6 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,483 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 12 September 2012 - 22:46

I miss Massa driving off with the fuel hose...


No I don't miss it at all. 2010 was often rather dull race wise granted, but since then the racing has been much better than the refuelling years.

#7 Mauseri

Mauseri
  • Member

  • 7,540 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 12 September 2012 - 22:50

Refuelling is an invention of the 90s and perverted the original spirit of F1 (which ran from 1950 to the 1990s and since 2010 in the classic non-refuelling set up).
Many strategic elements got lost with refueling, as did the sublime capability to manage the car and it's changing weight over the length of a whole race.

The result of refuelling was the segmentation of an F1 race into two or three sprint races, which benefited specific drivers but did not keep with the original spirit of F1. Good riddance!

Agreed. Without refueling it's more like endurance race, plus that pit stop strategies are more interesting when the pitting car finds more speed instead of becoming road block for others.

#8 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 14,456 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 12 September 2012 - 22:55

Not particularly. I like the major differences in weight and therefore handling between the beginning and end of a stint. In Indycar they can have fuel stops in sprint races and retain this, because methanol is so damn heavy per unit of energy extracted. But refuelling didn't add much to F1 races.

Edited by Risil, 12 September 2012 - 22:56.


#9 F1Squishy

F1Squishy
  • Member

  • 65 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 12 September 2012 - 23:04

I don't necessarily want refueling back but as the OP said the cars look so slow compared to the refueling days. Take out the mandatory stop and give them better, faster tyres then we'll see F1 cars as they should be!

#10 TFLB

TFLB
  • Member

  • 1,616 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 12 September 2012 - 23:10

No and no. Racing without refueling is purer and F1 cars never look pathetic. They still look fast. However, it would be better to get rid of some of the stupid rules like the top 10 tyre rule and the 'must use both compounds' rule.

#11 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,449 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 12 September 2012 - 23:13

No, I hated refueling the whole time we had it. I don't ever want to see it return.

#12 Collective

Collective
  • Member

  • 1,132 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 12 September 2012 - 23:21

1) No.

2) No. That's their pace in full tanks. No big deal.

#13 Collective

Collective
  • Member

  • 1,132 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 12 September 2012 - 23:22

No and no. Racing without refueling is purer and F1 cars never look pathetic. They still look fast. However, it would be better to get rid of some of the stupid rules like the top 10 tyre rule and the 'must use both compounds' rule.

That's more like it.

#14 Tonka

Tonka
  • Member

  • 834 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 12 September 2012 - 23:30

Perez had a remarkable race on Sunday. He's done it before and other drivers have tried to do the same thing.

If cars had to refuel after X laps, we'd never see such feats of driving again.



#15 BlackCat

BlackCat
  • Member

  • 808 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 September 2012 - 23:31

get rid of all mandatory pit stops. and if the cars look slow, remove all chicanes. hmm, even if the cars do not look slow, get rid of chicanes and bulldoze Indy infield.

#16 gm914

gm914
  • Member

  • 6,046 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 12 September 2012 - 23:33

Voted no and no.
Where are the opinions of all these silent 'yes' voters? I'm surprised there are as many as there are actually, but all the posts so far are against the idea of refueling.

Speak up people! Who are you and why do you want it returned? :p



#17 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 10,077 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 12 September 2012 - 23:58

I liked 2010 more, but its still better to not have refueling.

#18 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,868 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 13 September 2012 - 00:18

Sighhh...What we need is better tyres, no 2 compound rule, no parc-ferme rule, cars producing less turbulence. A race with refuelling is not a race that takes place on track but mainly in the pits and engineers' laptops, and overtakes, if any, are the result of cars with different weights more than anything else. If this is the kind of "racing" people like, we might as well have drivers doing timed laps by themselves at circuits, best aggregate time for x number of laps wins. That would be ideal for some fans: a good way of avoiding pesky racing incidents, overtakes and blocks affecting their favorite driver.

#19 genespleen

genespleen
  • Member

  • 359 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 13 September 2012 - 00:27

Odd. Despite 20 votes in favour of refueling (at the time I write this), the comments in the actual thread are almost unanimously against it. Where are its advocates?

Advertisement

#20 Kingshark

Kingshark
  • Member

  • 2,944 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 13 September 2012 - 00:46

The refueling era was brutal, horrible.

Unfortunately it's unavoidable that people will always look back on the past with rose tinted glasses.

#21 CoolBreeze

CoolBreeze
  • Member

  • 498 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 13 September 2012 - 00:48

Yes. those 3 secs plus pitstops look crazily amazing.

#22 Madera

Madera
  • Member

  • 372 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 13 September 2012 - 01:59

I really miss those pitlane fires, always an exciting part of F1 :(

Then the hose man that lost his job :cry:

Seriously though, the racing is way better off without it.

#23 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 5,140 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 13 September 2012 - 03:12

The racing is good enough now, we have different winners, mid grid teams like Sauber/Williams getting to the front, lots of overtaking. Refuelling will tip the scale back towards boring. A good compromise now.

#24 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,656 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 13 September 2012 - 03:40

I prefer the strategy-style of no refueling by far. Instead of having pre-prescribed pit stop times, teams are now largely making these calls on-the-fly and some quick thinking or a gamble spices up the show. Plus, there's no cumbersome fuel hose that everyone waits to finish and then sometimes gets dragged off or starts a fire or something else that could have been avoided by not having them altogether.

And plus, what everyone else is saying. It now feels like one, nice long race instead of a series of sprints. More emphasis is put on the driver to manage the car throughout its changing states with tires and fuel levels and its also more of an engineering challenge to make a car fast both on high and low fuel levels.

The cars aren't slow, either. Even with full tanks, these machines are impressive things.

Getting rid of refueling is one of the best things F1 has done in quite a while, to be honest. Right up there with banning traction control and cleaning up the car's looks from the 2008 appendage abominations they'd become. I'd be quite upset if it ever came back.

Edited by Seanspeed, 13 September 2012 - 03:42.


#25 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 13 September 2012 - 04:31

Refuelling is an invention of the 90s and perverted the original spirit of F1 (which ran from 1950 to the 1990s and since 2010 in the classic non-refuelling set up).
Many strategic elements got lost with refueling, as did the sublime capability to manage the car and it's changing weight over the length of a whole race.

The result of refuelling was the segmentation of an F1 race into two or three sprint races, which benefited specific drivers but did not keep with the original spirit of F1.


Nice summary. :up:

#26 aray

aray
  • Member

  • 2,721 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 13 September 2012 - 06:01

1.No.I don't miss refueling....less time in pit and more in the track is what i expect from a car...


2.Nope....because I at least,can't,visually differ the so called lose of pace compared to 10 years ago(i watched it back then too)....

#27 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 2,951 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:27

Do I miss the Trulli trains that segmented the field so that races were a 50+ lap procession of cars in their qualifying positions?

Hell no. The mentality "I can overtake in the pits instead" crippled the racing for years, and the vast majority of races weren't decided by driver skill managing tyres or pulling overtakes, but by what some egg head got as a feed out from his calculator.

Trundle around, knock out a few good in laps and out laps when you pitted and you were past your rival without ever being within 100 metres. When they did pull an overtake it was mostly down to fuel load, which is even more fake than the Pirellis people cry about.

There were good races during that era, but the average race was far more boring than the average non-refueling race of today.

#28 toxicfusion

toxicfusion
  • Member

  • 523 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:33

Under refuelling, the thought process went something like this: "Why attempt an overtake now? I've got more fuel, so when he pits I'll push then and come out ahead of him after my pit stop."

With the tyres now there is more scope for creative thinking on strategy, whilst a lot of the time teams will all do pretty much the same thing you'll get drivers and teams trying the opposite or having more or less stops.

#29 forixfan

forixfan
  • Member

  • 102 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:37

In race conditions, the cars look castrated creatures - essentially like upgraded Champ Cars from the mid-90's. They are just trying to preserve the tyres because they're worn quicker on high fuel. As such it means that the teams spend gazillions to develop the most awesome cars on the planet only for them to race at essentially walking speed.



Its just your imagination because visually on TV its impossible to tell the difference between high and medium fuel loads. Once thing for sure is that the cars race a lot more than in refuelling days, with a lot more overtaking.

#30 LB

LB
  • Member

  • 12,646 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 13 September 2012 - 08:06

Refuelling is an invention of the 90s and perverted the original spirit of F1 (which ran from 1950 to the 1990s and since 2010 in the classic non-refuelling set up).
Many strategic elements got lost with refueling, as did the sublime capability to manage the car and it's changing weight over the length of a whole race.

The result of refuelling was the segmentation of an F1 race into two or three sprint races, which benefited specific drivers but did not keep with the original spirit of F1. Good riddance!


It started in the modern era in 1982 with Brabham not the 1990's was banned in 1984 then brought back in 1994 and then banned again in 2010.

However they used to refuel in the 50's and 60's. Not deliberately I'll admit but only when they had to.

#31 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 13 September 2012 - 08:11

Given enough time anything can look good with rose tinted glasses.



#32 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 13 September 2012 - 08:30

Ah, yes, those great times of the past. When people didn't even try to overtake because it would be faster and with less risk to do it in the pits. When nobody including the commentators knew the real order of the race until the very last stop. When it was impossible to judge lap times because of different fuel loads. When great drives went unrewarded because the fuel pump malfunctioned or the fuel guy couldn't get the nozzle on or off the car in time.

Nah. I'd rather not.

#33 Bleu

Bleu
  • Member

  • 805 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 September 2012 - 08:36

I haven't missed refuelling for 51 races now.


#34 DampMongoose

DampMongoose
  • Member

  • 1,394 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 13 September 2012 - 08:37

F1 would benefit far more with the cars using single plane wings and brake discs made of a material that would double or triple braking distances, then we'd see some overtaking moves without DRS too! You could also go back to having tyres with a more useful life as they would not be needed to manipulate the strategy of the race...

#35 F1Gui

F1Gui
  • Member

  • 39 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 13 September 2012 - 08:46

refuelling was only interesting when there was a fire or a driver pulling away with the hose still attached.


#36 item3785

item3785
  • Member

  • 58 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 13 September 2012 - 09:09

1993 Monza GP: Fastest Lap: 1:23.575 on lap 45 (of 53)
Pole Time: 1:21.179

1992 Monza GP: Fastest Lap: 1:26.119 on lap 39 (of 53)
Pole Time: 1:22.221

1991 Monza GP: Fastest Lap: 1:26.061 on lap 41 (of 51)
Pole Time: 1:21.114


No refuelling. Fastest Laps set in last quarter of race. 2.5 to 4 seconds difference to pole times. I don't remember anyone complaining about neutered cars then.




#37 Hippo

Hippo
  • Member

  • 2,378 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 13 September 2012 - 09:15

I'm surprised so many voted no. I remember when the ban of refueling was suggested in 08 or 09 how many forum members were complaining about it. Granted, most of them probably had never seen an F1 race without refueling, but they wouldn't listen to reason anyways. So I find it amusing that some of them apparently changed their minds.

Now we only need to get rid of a few more things. Bring back gravel instead of tarmac run offs. Drop the stupid rule that forces them to use both compounds. And while you're at it you can also drop the other rule that penalizes the top10 qualifiers by forcing them to start on used rubber. And if you could come up with an idea to bring back true overtaking in the braking zones you could also ditch the sometimes awkward DRS.

I don't care if the cars go around the lap in 1:24 or 1:41. Can't see the difference on TV anyways.

#38 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 13 September 2012 - 09:30

I do miss it. I liked having to stay longer to leapfrog instead of this rubbish undercut. Also now it´s possible to pass, refueling won´t bring boredom again. I´d also like pitstops being less mistake likely, and refueling would help. 2009 season races with new generation aero and refueling gave EXCELLENT racing, without DRS. So let´s go for it.

However, I´m not bothered about the laptimes during the race. It´s just a number. My only issue with no refuel races is the way cars leapfrog each other and how it encourages pitting instead of staying on the track.

#39 goldenboy

goldenboy
  • Member

  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 13 September 2012 - 09:52

I sometimes feel the cars look too slow at the start, but always HATED races being ruined by a refuelling jig stuffing up

Advertisement

#40 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 13 September 2012 - 09:54

Ah, yes, those great times of the past. When people didn't even try to overtake because it would be faster and with less risk to do it in the pits.


To be fair they didn´t pass because cars wouldn´t allow passes, not because they were waiting for anything.


#41 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,658 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 13 September 2012 - 10:19

1993 Monza GP: Fastest Lap: 1:23.575 on lap 45 (of 53)
Pole Time: 1:21.179

1992 Monza GP: Fastest Lap: 1:26.119 on lap 39 (of 53)
Pole Time: 1:22.221

1991 Monza GP: Fastest Lap: 1:26.061 on lap 41 (of 51)
Pole Time: 1:21.114


No refuelling. Fastest Laps set in last quarter of race. 2.5 to 4 seconds difference to pole times. I don't remember anyone complaining about neutered cars then.


Fortunately you forgot the cranked up qualifying engines, brakes and tires that lasted only a few to a dozen laps or so. Now the car in Q is the same as in race trim. Also the track was a little bit different then.

#42 Spillage

Spillage
  • Member

  • 1,054 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 13 September 2012 - 10:27

No and no. Thought I would at first, and I did in 2010 when we had Bridgestones that could do a full race distance, but Pirelli have really spiced up the racing and thrown in a whole new element of strategy control the drivers have to master. There was also a significant safety issue with refuelling that hasn't been missed at all.

On the TV screen the cars still look fast, and if it wasn't for the timing I'd have difficulty telling they were lapping any slower than in qualifying at all.

Edited by Spillage, 13 September 2012 - 10:27.


#43 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 2,517 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 13 September 2012 - 10:29

No to both. I'd rather get rid of all pit-stops at this point. The main reason I can sometimes notice that the cars are heavier and slower than they might have been in the early 2000s is when they get out of balance and look slightly sluggish, but I really can't tell the difference between a 1:30 and 1:35 laptime. Perhaps somebody else can, but to me it's not an issue.

#44 icecream

icecream
  • Member

  • 450 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 13 September 2012 - 10:29

Such nonsense. Brabham "invented" it in 1982, and the only reason it wasn't used earlier is because teams hadn't worked out that there was an advantage in running a lighter car that would overcome the time lost. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the origional spirit,


is this true? i find it hard to believe that it took them that long to figure it out.

#45 jeze

jeze
  • Member

  • 2,973 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 13 September 2012 - 10:32

It's a question of taste really. Fuel hose errors were very rare anyway and they could easily be halted by 1 s/pit stop to make sure the refuelling process took a little longer and was safer. Completely standardized equipment that would make it cheaper and fairer for everyone.

I don't understand the hatred for seeing F1 cars being driven at the pace they were designed for. Non-refuelling is fun for casual viewers who can't understand the spirit of competitiveness. To make races a 70-lap sprint helps aggressive drivers like Hamilton be the stars they are. Also, the risk of braking misjudgements and drivers being taken out is reduced if the cars are more predictable under braking, so it's also a safety issue. I know that Kubica agrees with me... I remember him telling F1 Racing how annoying it was from a driver's perspective not to be able to race at ultimate pace because all limitations and that was back then, now it's worse!

I'm of the opinion that modern-day F1's popularity among people is a bit of a fraud since the memories are short and people are forgetting the wonderful seasons there were between 2005 and 2009. If you added DRS, KERS and Pirelli tyres to the 2007 season there would be absolutely crazy races between the Ferrari and McLaren drivers at the time too. If there were no DRS and these tyres the races now would be complete processions.

#46 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,687 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 13 September 2012 - 10:46

is this true? i find it hard to believe that it took them that long to figure it out.


Well refuelling techniques were a bit primitive back then, hence it was banned a couple of years later. Brabham were certainly the first to use it to run lighter. Like many of these things teams just followed the pack and it often needs someone to think outside the box.

#47 item3785

item3785
  • Member

  • 58 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 13 September 2012 - 11:04

Fortunately you forgot the cranked up qualifying engines, brakes and tires that lasted only a few to a dozen laps or so. Now the car in Q is the same as in race trim. Also the track was a little bit different then.


Yes, I take your point about the qualifying engines, but I was trying to compare each years pole and fastest lap, not the change from year to year, so the change in track layout didn't need to be considered. Also the cars are allowed to run DRS throughout the lap in qualifying, but not in the race, so there is some change in the race spec.


#48 Puhoon

Puhoon
  • Member

  • 236 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 13 September 2012 - 11:14

Fortunately you forgot the cranked up qualifying engines, brakes and tires that lasted only a few to a dozen laps or so. Now the car in Q is the same as in race trim. Also the track was a little bit different then.


I don't think they changed the track between quali and race, so it's ok to compare the differences.

#49 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,658 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 13 September 2012 - 11:24

I don't have Forix acces, but it would be nice to see a list of poles and fastest laps from 1990 till now.

#50 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 13 September 2012 - 11:43

To be fair they didn´t pass because cars wouldn´t allow passes, not because they were waiting for anything.

That was often the case, but not always. Even in those days, it was possible to overtake on the track - but doing so would often cost more time overall then just sitting behind each other for a few laps and then getting by in the pits.