17 replies to this topic

[Alfisti]

Anyone who also scopes the readers forum will be aware of my never ending rant to ban re-fuelling simply due to the following reasons:

- drivers see no need to risk a pass on the track when they can wait until the guy in front pits then put in a few fliers and come out in front

- MANY times over the last 3 years MH and MS have been VERY close in qualifying but had different strategies so in effect it is not a race but two drivers completeing "time trials" to see who can cover 300KM the fastest...... ala Brazil. This results in the cars not "meeting" until the last 20% of the race... insane!

Now I have been watching GPs since Japan 93 so i have no experience on whether my theories are correct. Was there more passing when re-fuelling was banned???

Ps. I know not all other things are equal.

[BRG]

Alfisti

You have my vote every time over banning refuelling. I oppose it both for safety reasons and because it has engendered the "pass-in-the-pits" mentality.

Of course there was more passing in the pre-refuelling days, but there are many other variables, such as aeroynamics, tyres and circuit changes that have also had an effect on overtaking. And the "good old days" were not necessarily such a golden age as some may think - boring races are not a new thing!

Get rid of refuelling, yes, but it needs to be part of a larger package of reform to restore F1 as a racing formula.

------------------
BRG

"all the time, maximum attack"

[Alfisti]

I couldn't agree more BRG. You know what bothers me more though?? Knowing that say MH and MS are EXTREMELY close but one is on a 3 stopper and the other a 2 stopper so you get what happened in Brazil where they wwere not going to meet untilt he last 10 laps. Absolutely nuts.

In fact, in that race all of the top 6 cars were on different startegies so they never saw each other... crazy. Anyone who supports refuelling should look at Brazil as a case study on why their insane.

[Dave Ware]

I'd much rather see the cars (both F1 and CART) fill up with fuel and race for the duration. To me, the point of this racing business is to see which driver in which car can go faster and finish the race first. Not to see who can juggle his pit stops to his advantage. Pit-stop strategy is interesting in it's own way, but it's not part of racing, IMHO.

Every year there are a number of CART races in which the pit stops get so jumbled up that I come away after the race wondering how so-and-so ever got to the lead, and how another driver lost his second place position and ended up 14th, stuff like that.

And the danger involved. I remember Verstappen's pit fire in '94, and I'm continually surprised that that has been the only one.

Dave

[Art]

I don't agree with the no refueling. The race at Imola would of been a real dog without MH tryilg to catch MS at the end of the race. The size of the cars would have to be increased to handle the extra fuel even if refrigerated. At times pit stops even up an unfair advantage.

Art

[Don Capps]

I find myself siding with the refuelling side, but very seriously question the use of pressurized systems. That is a source of constant irritation with me. Don't like it and never have.

I also question the use of "gasoline" as the fuel. My prefernce would be for the use of "alcohol" (methanol) as the fuel or a blend there of. Indeed, in my mind the future of F1 should be linked to the "greening" of internal combustion engines.

Enough from me on a comment that is really an item for the Big Forum. The fuel economy GP races from the late 80's turned me off pretty badly then and now.

------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,

Don Capps

Semper Gumbi: If this was easy, we’d have the solution already…

[desmo]

I've got no real problem with refueling other than the fact that eventually there will be a nasty accident at some point. To digress a bit, Don if you want to make F1 "greener" why not make F1 cars meet EU emissions limits? I see no downside.

[Dennis David]

In the 20's it was somewhat common to actually turn off the engine and coast into the pits and only restart the car after refueling was finished so as not to create a fire ball because of a backfire.

In the old days refueling was necessary because of the distance of the races. I think that it is an integral part of racing. The problem is that the current races are to short. A grand prix should be a minimum of 500 miles.

------------------
Regards,

Dennis David
Grand Prix History

Life is racing, the rest is waiting

[William Dale Jr]

With a subject like this, you have to be objective. I'm not old enough to have watched races before 1988, but if they removed refuelling, dry-weather Grand Prix's would be a total bore to watch. It is often the only time you can pass with the current breed of GP cars, but that's another topic.
When refuelling was introduced in 1994, Max Mosely had two main reasons for re-introducing it - 1: Entertainment. This was a point Jackie Stewart kept talking about during the '94 AGP coverage, or more the safety aspect. Which brings me to - 2: Safety! It was regarded that cars travelling with fuel loads of 100L or less would be safer if the fuel tank were to rupture in a crash than a car with a tank full of up to 300L.
Furthermore, would refuelling have caught on if Gordon Murray hadn't introduced it in 1982?
I'm quite sure what I've said is right, please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Huw Jenjin]

To me, apart from the danger aspect both from fire and cars dodging team personnel, which some time is going to cause a major catastrophe, Racing has become like watching chess rather than say a 400m athletics race.IE strategically challenging but as exiting as watching paint dry.
We should really know the names of every top mechanic and be treasuring their autographs, because they are the ones taking huge risks, and win or lose races for multi million pound cars. When huge sums of money go into gaining a tenth of a secondwith F1 cars, and no matter how consumate the skill of the driver, with one butter fingers in the crew the race is won or lost. Where is the sense in that?
as for have large quantities of fuel on board, that is quite valid reason for pitstops.With the current aerodynamics such as they are no overtaking takes place, so a longer race would just prolong the agony.

[Alfisti]

Yeah i am with the comments such as "boring as chess" or "getting the names of the mechanic" because as you've said, too much control is being taken fromthe driver.

Don, your stance surprises me to be honest. BTW, what do you mean by the "fuel economy" races of the late 80's????

Naturally, banning re-fuelling will not result in more passing as the cars have to be widened, slicks returned and wings reduced to do that but i can't help but feel we are being ripped off when the two top teams are on different strategies.

[Roger Clark]

I'd like to endorse Dennis' plea for longer races. 500miles might be too long, 500kms might be better.

When did the rules change to allow them to keep the engine running during a pitstop? I'm sure it was much later than the 1920s. Things might get interesting if they had to restart the engine after the stop. While we're at it, perhaps we should go back to the days when only the driver and one mechanic could work on a car.

[Alfisti]

nup..that would be a backward step... F1 has to stay on the edge.

[Don Capps]

Alfi, the time after the turbos took over (1983/1984) constitutes the late 80's to me!! (If you don't believe it ask Felix and Matt at 8W!! They must cheer whenever I get an 80's question correct!!) What I refer to are the races when the fuel tanks (cells) shrunk and there was no refueling and it was an economy run in many cases - especially at some tracks like Imola - to get close and then hope you had enough fuel vapor to get across the line. I was otherwise occupied at this time and didn't care enough about what I saw to give a rat's posterior about "F1" and so tuned out pretty much. (Okay, so I was also a commander and then a professor and virtually lived in my office, picky, picky...)

------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,

Don Capps

Semper Gumbi: If this was easy, we’d have the solution already…

[William Dale Jr]

The races might have been more judged on economy, but then there were drivers like Ayrton Senna who tried to judge the races by the fuel counter on the dashboard, and it is said somewhere that if he ended up with more than half-a-lap's worth of fuel on board he felt that he'd misjudged the race. I'll bet he felt bad at Imola in 1985...

Even if the racing of the turbo era was boring, you have to admit that the cars were technically exciting, after all, for BMW to get a stock-block-based engine to put out over 1000bhp and hold together, and to be able to finish a race distance on a single 200-and-something-Litre tank of fuel is an impressive feat!

[Laphroaig]

Hemm... banning refueling, and making the max. fuel capacity a bit low might be nice way to boost engine technology! The manufacturers would have to make a good balance between fuel consumption (= starting weight) and speed since it's quite impossible to overtake with a modern F1 car... Dunno if it would benefit racing, but technology wise it would be fun
Other drastic ideas: Hydrogen fuel-cell F1 car... after 2 or 3 big bada-boom's they'd need to find new and safer tank constructions.
Lets bring back F1 as a technology development platform

[This message has been edited by Laphroaig (edited 04-20-2000).]

[ZippyD]

Refueling sucks big time. It destroys the rhythm and flow of the race and discourages passing on the track. But uncle Bernie seems to like it so it stays.


------------------
"Hugo, have you ever tried Ouzzo?"
"Madame I have tried everything."
"Well last night I had Ouzzo with some Greeks. Allot of Ouzzo."
"And what was you husband doing when all this Greek and Ouzzo business was going on?"
"The same thing he's always doing the night before a race; trying to sleep."

[desmo]

Laphroig,

Hear, hear! By the time Max and Bernie get their hands off from around the neck of F1, it'll be open-wheel NASCAR run on road courses.