Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

Would races be interesting will fuel and type stops?


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#51 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,477 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 15 May 2014 - 15:39

I am against pit-stops, were we to have them they had to be slower. Like how at Le Mans it have to take 'x' minutes, rather than as fast as possible. If there were a mandated minimum length, and if the pit-stop were no mandatory, then a team could decide to forego and make their time on track.

 

Ferrari too fast

 

 

Brabham re-introducing look at 7:29

 

 

Fangio at the ring look at 4:11

 

 

:cool:

 

 



Advertisement

#52 Youichi

Youichi
  • Member

  • 3,000 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 15 May 2014 - 15:52

Refueling sucked, I'd ban pit-car radios and let the drivers choose how they managed their tyres.

 

I'd also bring all four types of tyres to every event, and let them decide the best usage, three stops on super-softs vs two stops on softs vs one stop on Mediums, vs no-stop hards !



#53 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,582 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 15 May 2014 - 18:47

How are F1 high pressure refueling rigs road relevant? How is stopping to refuel a car every 30 minutes road relevant?


I would LOVE 10 second refueling at home. No longer freezing your hands of when you are holding the fuel pistol for 5 minutes at -10 C and cold winds. And no, in the Netherlands there are no clamps to keep the fuel flowing.

#54 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,419 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 15 May 2014 - 19:05

I would LOVE 10 second refueling at home. No longer freezing your hands of when you are holding the fuel pistol for 5 minutes at -10 C and cold winds. And no, in the Netherlands there are no clamps to keep the fuel flowing.

 

I'm still waiting for three second tyre changes, but alas they're probably a bit too dangerous for the average service station.



#55 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,096 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 May 2014 - 20:07

Type stops like this one? I think it will get old soon

2dp3ix.jpg



#56 zanquis

zanquis
  • Member

  • 295 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 16 May 2014 - 04:58

I think banning refeuling is the best thing they have done in years, it ruined the racing and helped make it more predictable, because the car would behave close to optimal the entire race, look at the stats but during the refeul days, most of the times the order of starting turned out to be order of finish with exception of those who did not finish. Cars have plenty of fuel, they are not cruising to save fuel that much. But atleast now you have cars that go better on full load compared to others and those who go better at the end.now we just need to remove tire limitations, let teams decide which tire to use and when. Maybe team A wants full race on hard with maybe 1 stop, while team b wants to go for super softs with 4 stops.

#57 skyfolker

skyfolker
  • Member

  • 231 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 16 May 2014 - 05:48

There are only few things in racing more gruesome than qualifying on race fuel,waiting for cars to leave for pits to be overtaken and artificial racing between cars with different fuel loads,although proposal from OP would be experiment-worthy.



#58 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,468 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 16 May 2014 - 08:40

For some reason in F1 the combination of refuelling and tyre stops never really worked that well form the point of view of making races unpredictable. In most cases it meant that out laps would be slower than in laps, so the trick was to stretch your fuel, and overtake by pitting later. You could go for a lighter load and more stops, but unless you were a lot faster and could make the passes on track it wouldn't work well. At least with the undercut in today's races, you are almost certain of gaining position by pitting sooner, but it might come back to the other guy later because his tyres are fresher.

 

In Indycar they have refuelling and tyre changes, but I think there are two factors that work to make the races more interesting/chaotic. Safety car periods are more common, so it's generally worth gambling on pitting now rather than sticking to your original plan, because it might pay off later. In F1 you'd pit under the SC, but simply adjust your strategy to the end from there. The other thing is the limited fuel tank size, so there's a maximum number of laps that everyone can do. But this leads to fuel saving. If you think fuel saving in F1 is common, then you haven't seen the guys in Indycar gambling on a 2-stop strategy and trying to make it to the end in the last stint.

 

Would you want to turn F1 into Indy-style racing like that? I'd rather they kept their current characteristics.



#59 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,582 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 16 May 2014 - 09:22

Indy is gaining momentum while F1 is losing it...



Advertisement

#60 Tourgott

Tourgott
  • Member

  • 430 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 16 May 2014 - 09:35

 

Would you want to turn F1 into Indy-style racing like that? 

 

I would turn F1 into everything else than what it is today.



#61 Maustinsj

Maustinsj
  • Member

  • 859 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 16 May 2014 - 09:36

How would you get the typewriter in the car?



#62 king_crud

king_crud
  • Member

  • 1,503 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 16 May 2014 - 10:18

For some reason in F1 the combination of refuelling and tyre stops never really worked that well form the point of view of making races unpredictable. In most cases it meant that out laps would be slower than in laps, so the trick was to stretch your fuel, and overtake by pitting later. You could go for a lighter load and more stops, but unless you were a lot faster and could make the passes on track it wouldn't work well. At least with the undercut in today's races, you are almost certain of gaining position by pitting sooner, but it might come back to the other guy later because his tyres are fresher.

 

In Indycar they have refuelling and tyre changes, but I think there are two factors that work to make the races more interesting/chaotic. Safety car periods are more common, so it's generally worth gambling on pitting now rather than sticking to your original plan, because it might pay off later. In F1 you'd pit under the SC, but simply adjust your strategy to the end from there. The other thing is the limited fuel tank size, so there's a maximum number of laps that everyone can do. But this leads to fuel saving. If you think fuel saving in F1 is common, then you haven't seen the guys in Indycar gambling on a 2-stop strategy and trying to make it to the end in the last stint.

 

Would you want to turn F1 into Indy-style racing like that? I'd rather they kept their current characteristics.

the indy race on Sunday was a fantastic race because of all of the different strategies. So yes, I would want it.



#63 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,468 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 16 May 2014 - 10:55

I guess I'll see you in the Indycar threads from now on :)



#64 king_crud

king_crud
  • Member

  • 1,503 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 16 May 2014 - 12:16

I guess I'll see you in the Indycar threads from now on :)

I have been



#65 chrcol

chrcol
  • Member

  • 1,010 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 20 May 2014 - 03:52

refuelling was good, especially when had varying fuel loads during quali, which added some uncertianty to race performance.

 

At the time they ditched refuelling the reasoning was supposedbly to make pit stops less important, yet they are just as important as before, and now is tons of time pressure on trye changes.



#66 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 859 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 20 May 2014 - 04:51

This is not a logical conclusion.  Without the fuel flow limit, there is still a maximum fuel allowed.  Refuelling still isn't necessary.  So then you can get rid of the total fuel allotment.  The teams can still make the tank bigger if they want to use more fuel.  So in reality, neither the fuel flow limit, nor the race fuel allotment is what prevents refueling.  The only thing that prevents refueling is the rule that says no refueling.     

 

I didn't exactly say anything to the contrary, I'm not sure why people here are so keen on legal interpretations of the syntax of posts?  Obviously I am in favor of refueling in conjunction with no fuel flow limit, for the likewise obvious reasons.

 

Light cars running to the limit of the engine, without consideration for having to conserve fuel by coasting into corners just to make it to the end - imagine that?  What a fanciful dream...



#67 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 859 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 20 May 2014 - 04:54

The overtakes you see now are because of DRS and tyres, not because of lack of refueling.

 

 

And the "overtakes" are not neccessarily "overtakes", when you've got mismatched strategies going against each other that in the end produces the same result. 

 

Passes matter in the last 10 laps of the race this year - before that, it's just getting the tires and fuel strategy sorted.  Swapping positions every other lap because of DRS isn't "overtaking".  



#68 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,582 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 20 May 2014 - 08:56

refuelling was good, especially when had varying fuel loads during quali, which added some uncertianty to race performance.

 

At the time they ditched refuelling the reasoning was supposedbly to make pit stops less important, yet they are just as important as before, and now is tons of time pressure on trye changes.

 

I strongly dislike bringing racing things into qualy. It only makes the order more stagnant. In the early parts of the '00, Ferrari was not a qualification monster like for example the Williams or McLaren. Bring in race fuel, tire strategy, etc into the fray and you can lose out with what otherwise would be a very fast, single lap car. Back then, you could also (and were allowed to) defend your position, that also helped.



#69 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,468 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 20 May 2014 - 09:22

refuelling was good, especially when had varying fuel loads during quali, which added some uncertianty to race performance.

 

At the time they ditched refuelling the reasoning was supposedbly to make pit stops less important, yet they are just as important as before, and now is tons of time pressure on trye changes.

 

The reasoning was more to do with making pitstops safer by removing the high pressure fuelling, and also to make the pit stop strategies less predictable. The perceived problem was that the strategy was set too strictly by fuel loads, and it was inevitable that the driver who ran longer would jump up the order after a round of stops.

 

Pit stops are still important, but the idea was that with tyre stops there's a bit of variance depending on how well you can look after your tyres and that there's a bit of gamesmanship in trying to pit before your opponent to get an undercut but not too early. I think on balance I prefer without refuelling, but I don't think they quite got what they intended.



#70 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,582 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 20 May 2014 - 10:13

If teams could choose between all compounds every race, then you could see a bigger difference in strategy. Let the teams choose their own two compounds a month before the race.



#71 Myrvold

Myrvold
  • Member

  • 2,875 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 20 May 2014 - 20:52

Like always in these discussions... There hasn't been a single rulechange in F1, that have removed as much overtakes on track, as the rule permitting filling fuel in pit-stops did.