118 replies to this topic

[inox]

I would like to see your opinions on whether refueling should return to F1 and if it returns how the qualifying should be arranged. Please cast your votes, Thanks!

 

Edit: Personally I voted "No" for both questions. Never liked what refueling did to racing. And If they would start qualifying with race fuels, pole sitter could end up with even slower time than now (even if other changes to make cars faster are applied). I don't want to see GP2 cars get any closer than now. Fastest GP2 cars are already beating the slowest F1 cars. To put this into a perspective, lets compare Barcelona qualifying times this year: Mercedes was 3 seconds faster than McLaren, which in turn was only 1.5 seconds faster than GP2 pole. More sadly, the slowest GP2 car was faster that slowest F1 car. That's the cruel state of current F1 affairs.

Edited by inox, 20 May 2015 - 20:11.

[ninetyzero]

Question; Should refueling return to F1 in 2017?

 

Short answer; No.

Long Answer: Heeeeell no!

[Alx09]

Yes, Yes.

[Szoelloe]

It will return to F1.    ??

[vowcartaGP]

I'll miss the longer wheelbase if we do have refuelling. I like the sleeker profile of the cars we have now, I always thought the engine covers looked too stubby pre-2009

[ANF]

It will return to F1.    ??

No.

[inox]

Interestingly, pretty much all the drivers seem to be favoring refueling:

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/119071

 

But that is probably understandable as they get to drive half of the race (or so) at faster pace. As a spectator you end up being totally lost whats happening in the circuit until the final stops. 

[RealRacing]

Someone send these results to the geniuses...

[Pingguest]

Interestingly, pretty much all the drivers seem to be favoring refueling:

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/119071

 

But that is probably understandable as they get to drive half of the race (or so) at faster pace. As a spectator you end up being totally lost whats happening in the circuit until the final stops. 

 

Most drivers want to push during the entire race, as if they do qualifying laps. For spectators however, it is important to have drivers with varying paces during the race, something that is less likely with in-race refueling.

[Nonesuch]

For spectators however, it is important to have drivers with varying paces during the race, something that is less likely with in-race refueling.

 

Those laps three seconds off the pace really make up for the boring fast laps that they do right after pitting for fresh tyres.

 

On a more serious note; refuelling is all well and good, but the tyres need to allow for the different type of racing. If the tyres are as bad as they are today I don't see refuelling making much of a difference.

[Fomalhaut]

No. People will start to complain again when they see that drivers don't try to overtake on track because they wait for the pit-stop.

[Atreiu]

Interestingly, pretty much all the drivers seem to be favoring refueling:

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/119071

 

But that is probably understandable as they get to drive half of the race (or so) at faster pace. As a spectator you end up being totally lost whats happening in the circuit until the final stops. 

 

Not totally lost, few races turned out too confusing.

 

The issue is with pit stop overtaking. Where's the fun in it? Of course the drivers don't know or think otherwise, they have all the fun racing and get to drive faster. But it fvcking sucks on TV.

[inox]

Not totally lost, few races turned out too confusing.

 

The issue is with pit stop overtaking. Where's the fun in it? Of course the drivers don't know or think otherwise, they have all the fun racing and get to drive faster. But it fvcking sucks on TV.

 

Agree with pit stop overtaking. And I meant more those on track spectators. On TV you might have at least some sort of idea what is happening. 

Edited by inox, 20 May 2015 - 21:35.

[REDalert]

If refueling comes back, they should make the tires more durable at the same time, or it changes little to non.

[DaddyCool]

Just to play the devil's advocate, how is overtaking during the refueling pit stop any worse than overtaking during the undercut pit stop (that we have now)?

[PlatenGlass]

How refuelling will affect the racing depends on variables such as tyres. Is this refuelling with the current cheese tyres, or with sensible racing tyres? So it's difficult to answer the question, and it also suggests to me that the FIA don't have much of an idea of what they're doing. They've only just got rid of refuelling, but they also introduced other variables, how are they deciding what's working and what's not?

But generally, I don't think refuelling is necessary. Have good tyres, cars that can overtake (I mean properly, not with DRS) and see how that goes before worrying about bringing back refuelling.

[Pingguest]

That is why I believe pit stops should be taken out of the series.

[scheivlak]

Just to play the devil's advocate, how is overtaking during the refueling pit stop any worse than overtaking during the undercut pit stop (that we have now)?

Have a look yourself at the refuelling age: teams and drivers didn't even bother to try a pass.

 

Apart from that: current undercut pitstops are already less relevant than a few years ago (the high days of Pirelli madness like Turkey 2011) and will certainly be less relevant if e.g. we get Michelin in play who have already showed that they can produce tyres that are both fast and durable.

[Doughnut King]

Most drivers want to push during the entire race, as if they do qualifying laps. For spectators however, it is important to have drivers with varying paces during the race, something that is less likely with in-race refueling.

 

My impression is that the drivers are for almost every sporting change until the season starts and they find themselves disadvantaged by it.

[BillBald]

Just to play the devil's advocate, how is overtaking during the refueling pit stop any worse than overtaking during the undercut pit stop (that we have now)?

 

When refuelling was banned, the argument was that this would lead to more overtaking because drivers would no longer be able to just wait for the pitstop.

 

It didn't lead to more overtaking, which is why they brought in DRS and high-deg tyres, and that in turn led to more pitstops and the consequent increased use of strategy.

 

The truth is that most drivers will overtake if they can. No driver will sit behind a slower car for very long, losing time and destroying his own race, just because he thinks he will get an easy pass sometime later in the pits.

[CurbPainter]

Yes to refuelling...

 

Less predictable outcome of races and best of all they can start making tyres which will last so drivers can push again...we will see the better drivers distinguish themselves again and will have more spectacular crashes because driving more on the limit will increase that also again.

 

What is the thrill of F1 when all they do is driving 0.5/1.0 seconds slower as they can to save tyres, if they have to come in for fuel anyway, they will also change tyres so there will be no need anymore to make tyres which won't last.

[garagetinkerer]

Yes to refuelling, and i don't quite like the restrictive options presented in the poll. Refuelling doesn't necessarily mean the slower driver will win the pole. It also brings more variables to the race strategies. Now if only they fixed the tyres by moving to something of a softer compound and have more compounds. Cost to teams will increase, but having a better compound may mean scoring points, or more of them.

Edited by garagetinkerer, 20 May 2015 - 23:38.

[garagetinkerer]

Not totally lost, few races turned out too confusing.

 

The issue is with pit stop overtaking. Where's the fun in it? Of course the drivers don't know or think otherwise, they have all the fun racing and get to drive faster. But it fvcking sucks on TV.

Most of the overtakes even now are ones with DRS, which in my opinion is not always the best to watch as some of them can properly make one cringe coming from as far behind because of artificially lowered drag/ increased top speed. The drivers also still try and undercut each other on tyres during a stop, so what's wrong with another variable in the mix? I'm all for it if it allows a team with a slower car to throw a spanner in works of team with a faster one.

[Menace]

Yes, bring back the refueling.

 

No, let them qualify on low fuel and extra tires that wont need to be used to start the race.

[ANF]

A quote from today's press conference:
 

Q: (Dan Knutson - AutoAction / Speed Sport magazines) All six of you, just yes or no, would you like to see refuelling return?

JB: It's not a question that has a yes or no answer is it? You obviously the safety aspect - the reason we went away from refuelling - and also the money, the cost. In terms of racing, I think it was great, back in the day when we had refuelling. If you had an issue on lap one, you could change your race around, you could do something different - whereas now it's very difficult…

"Do something different" means diving into the pits, getting a full tank of fuel, rejoining the track in clean air, driving your own race, looking after your tyres (yes!), not necessarily having to worry about the cars around you as they are all on different strategies and you're not really racing – and hopefully the lap times you do on this very long stint in clean air are good enough for you to gain a number of positions when the slower cars ahead of you run out of fuel and come into the pits.

"Now it's very difficult", on the other hand, means that now you have to overtake the slower cars on the track.

As a fan, watching the race on TV, I'm happy now.

[KingTiger]

When refuelling was banned, the argument was that this would lead to more overtaking because drivers would no longer be able to just wait for the pitstop.

 

It didn't lead to more overtaking, which is why they brought in DRS and high-deg tyres, and that in turn led to more pitstops and the consequent increased use of strategy.

 

The truth is that most drivers will overtake if they can. No driver will sit behind a slower car for very long, losing time and destroying his own race, just because he thinks he will get an easy pass sometime later in the pits.

 

It did lead to more overtaking. 2010

 

A quote from today's press conference:
 

"Do something different" means diving into the pits, getting a full tank of fuel, rejoining the track in clean air, driving your own race, looking after your tyres (yes!), not necessarily having to worry about the cars around you as they are all on different strategies and you're not really racing – and hopefully the lap times you do on this very long stint in clean air are good enough for you to gain a number of positions when the slower cars ahead of you run out of fuel and come into the pits.

"Now it's very difficult", on the other hand, means that now you have to overtake the slower cars on the track.

As a fan, watching the race on TV, I'm happy now.

 

I don't think Button is correct there anyway. Now you can pit and change tires whenever you see it advantageous, while with refueling you wouldn't be able to change your strategy after you've found yourself in a bad position because fuel strategy and being on low fuel for as long as possible was very important. 

Edited by KingTiger, 21 May 2015 - 00:00.

[TheCaptain]

In the same way that I'm loathed to think that what teams want is necessarily best for what the viewer wants, I don't think that what the driver wants is best for the the viewer either.     All drivers have their own particular skill set and it's natural for them to want a formula that suits them, just like teams try to push for rules which they think would give them an edge.     

[Craven Morehead]

Refueling? Absolutely yes. Anything to mix up strategies please.

Qualify on race fuel? Absolutely yes. Can mix things up resulting in more interesting races.

[Jimisgod]

Oh goody, more races where some guy on a perfect strategy beats the best driver on the day. People moaning about conservation but still wanting to turn every second into a fuel delta run.

You'll all want it gone by 2018.

[teejay]

Yes, yes.

[Tourgott]

Yes

No

[garagetinkerer]

Oh goody, more races where some guy on a perfect strategy beats the best driver on the day. People moaning about conservation but still wanting to turn every second into a fuel delta run.

You'll all want it gone by 2018.

It is a fuel delta/ tyres run right now, so what's the difference? It only adds more variables, and adds a possibility of results being influenced. What's wrong with someone trying harder winning a race? They would more likely have earned it and deserve it more as they beat the fastest package out there. 

Edited by garagetinkerer, 21 May 2015 - 04:42.

[LuckyStrike1]

We've had refuelling in F1 and it did nothing to improve the action and entertainment on track. 

[SenorSjon]

There was a topic about this: http://forums.autosp...ruin-the-sport/

I voted yes/no. 

 

 

Interestingly, pretty much all the drivers seem to be favoring refueling:

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/119071

 

But that is probably understandable as they get to drive half of the race (or so) at faster pace. As a spectator you end up being totally lost whats happening in the circuit until the final stops. 

 

And that is different now with waiting till the dual compound bonanza is gone?

 

A quote from today's press conference:
 

"Do something different" means diving into the pits, getting a full tank of fuel, rejoining the track in clean air, driving your own race, looking after your tyres (yes!), not necessarily having to worry about the cars around you as they are all on different strategies and you're not really racing – and hopefully the lap times you do on this very long stint in clean air are good enough for you to gain a number of positions when the slower cars ahead of you run out of fuel and come into the pits.

"Now it's very difficult", on the other hand, means that now you have to overtake the slower cars on the track.

As a fan, watching the race on TV, I'm happy now.

 

No. It means you are still way at the back, but have no hope of gaining a strategic advantage. With a filled up car and a possible SC, you can get to the front more easily.

 

 

Oh goody, more races where some guy on a perfect strategy beats the best driver on the day. People moaning about conservation but still wanting to turn every second into a fuel delta run.

You'll all want it gone by 2018.

 

Like it is fun watching Mercedes trundling at the front?

[Kobasmashi]

When refuelling was banned, the argument was that this would lead to more overtaking because drivers would no longer be able to just wait for the pitstop.

 

It didn't lead to more overtaking, which is why they brought in DRS and high-deg tyres, and that in turn led to more pitstops and the consequent increased use of strategy.

 

The truth is that most drivers will overtake if they can. No driver will sit behind a slower car for very long, losing time and destroying his own race, just because he thinks he will get an easy pass sometime later in the pits.

 

It kinda did lead to more overtaking though. 2010, which had neither KERS, Pirellis, nor DRS, had the most overtakes per race since before the refuelling era by quite a margin.

[Rinehart]

Most drivers want to push during the entire race, as if they do qualifying laps. For spectators however, it is important to have drivers with varying paces during the race, something that is less likely with in-race refueling.

 

 

That is why I believe pit stops should be taken out of the series.

 

[SenorSjon]

It kinda did lead to more overtaking though. 2010, which had neither KERS, Pirellis, nor DRS, had the most overtakes per race since before the refuelling era by quite a margin.

 

But it had six new cars, so naturally you would get more overtakes.

[Dunc]

People have short memories - the refuelling era made for dull racing.  If you watched races from the mid-2000s what you amost invariably saw was the car leading into the first corner pull away and win the race with the only action on track happening some way behind and refuelling was the main reason for that. 

 

While things aren't perfect now, I quite enjoy the fact that at a lot of races you do see some kind of fight for the lead and podium places during the race.

[cpbell]

I voted double negative, as recent history shows us that any "entertainment" benefits from refuelling aren't that significant for the reasons already described, and I'm also wary of the pitlane fires and accidents that can result - Massa in Singapore in 2008 was quite frightening as that hose could have done much more damage than it did. 

[Mandzipop]

There is no reason why overtaking would disappear. The main reason we have so much overtaking now is DRS related anyway. Nobody has mentioned doing away with DRS. So how will refuelling take away DRS overtakes?

[Gyno]

People have short memories - the refuelling era made for dull racing.  If you watched races from the mid-2000s what you amost invariably saw was the car leading into the first corner pull away and win the race with the only action on track happening some way behind and refuelling was the main reason for that. 

 

While things aren't perfect now, I quite enjoy the fact that at a lot of races you do see some kind of fight for the lead and podium places during the race.

 

 

So the exact same thing that is happening now.

The one who gets first corner and runs away will win the race.

 

Hamilton would have won Malaysia had it not been for the stupid SC at the start of the race.

[MikeMM]

People have short memories - the refuelling era made for dull racing.  If you watched races from the mid-2000s what you amost invariably saw was the car leading into the first corner pull away and win the race with the only action on track happening some way behind and refuelling was the main reason for that. 

 

While things aren't perfect now, I quite enjoy the fact that at a lot of races you do see some kind of fight for the lead and podium places during the race.

 

That is not true. Just look at the results of the poll.

Once again FIA did something that fans dont want.

[ensign14]

In the words of Margaret Thatcher: no, no, no.

 

In the words of The Wonderstuff: no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

 

In the words of Bad Manners: ne ne na na nu nu.

[hodgy21]

In the words of Margaret Thatcher: no, no, no.
 
In the words of The Wonderstuff: no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
 
In the words of Bad Manners: ne ne na na nu nu.

Destiny's Child: No, No, No, No, No.

[SenorSjon]

People have short memories - the refuelling era made for dull racing.  If you watched races from the mid-2000s what you amost invariably saw was the car leading into the first corner pull away and win the race with the only action on track happening some way behind and refuelling was the main reason for that. 

 

While things aren't perfect now, I quite enjoy the fact that at a lot of races you do see some kind of fight for the lead and podium places during the race.

 

That had other reasons. Like qualify on race fuel, parc fermé, rev limits, etc. People only tend to remember 2004 and are used that cars whizz by each other now.

[David1976]

I like the idea of refueling.  I am fed up of hearing about drivers nursing their cars in the first 15 laps.

 

As for qualifying - keep it exactly as it is with minimum fuel so we can see balls-out driving at its fastest.

[BullHead]

Why exactly was it banned for 2010 onwards?

[LuckyStrike1]

Why exactly was it banned for 2010 onwards?

 

Because the teams wanted it to be banned because of costs involved. That was the main reason anyway and it was the teams that pushed for a ban of refuelling and their main argument was costs.  

 

Other reasons, that was debated from both sidess, was:

 

Safety - dangerous to refuel cars in pit lane during races vs. dangerous to have cars start the race with full tanks and a lot of fuel onboard

 

Processional racing - drivers drove small sprints between pit stops for fuel and new tires and didn't overtake on the track vs. with no refuel everyone will race where they start and no possibility to start the race with low fuel and try and make an effort in the first laps before you eventually fall down the the position you can actually race in anyway. 

[SenorSjon]

Bar costs? Because that seems the reason for everything, just like road relevance.

 

If they find refueling to expensive, why make it mandatory? Let them decide for themselves if they want to refuel or not. Trouble is, the refuelers will be faster.

[kraduk]

Have a look yourself at the refuelling age: teams and drivers didn't even bother to try a pass.

 

Apart from that: current undercut pitstops are already less relevant than a few years ago (the high days of Pirelli madness like Turkey 2011) and will certainly be less relevant if e.g. we get Michelin in play who have already showed that they can produce tyres that are both fast and durable.

 

 

NARRRRRRRRRHHHHH

 

When will ppl stop using this narrative. Pirelli  produce tyres to the FIA mandate. THey were asked to produce cheese tyres, and as they were a monopoly they had no issue with it.