50 replies to this topic

[enrico_melli]

Hi everyone,
I was just reading about Clark's '65 Indy victory and the important role played by the Wood brothers and the fuel tank developed from Ford they had used: see the link . The system allowed to put in 58 US gallons in 15 seconds.
I know that in those years wasn't infrequent for F1 to stop in the last laps of the races to add some more liters, maybe for a petrol consumption higher than the previewed one. So I wonder why wasn't such a system (or something similar) ever introduced in F1, not even after Ford joined Lotus in '67. A pit stop of, let's say, 15 seconds, just to refuel (we know that in that period they didn't need to change tires), would have been worthy, if driving the 1° stint with a car 80kg lighter, at least on some circuits.
Was there a maximum petrol flow speed allowed or any other restrictive rule?


Thanks for the answers (and sorry for my poor english),
Enrico

[buckaluck]

It's not that they couldn't but it was not allowed so you had to make sure your motor MPG was enough to get through the whole race. Even if they had needed too they would have been passed by the field so that was the reason for not stopping.

[Ellis French]

Brabham at Longford Tasmania Aust. 1966....The opposite end of the fuelling record ...4 gallons in 5 minutes...

[RCH]

It's not that they couldn't but it was not allowed so you had to make sure your motor MPG was enough to get through the whole race. Even if they had needed too they would have been passed by the field so that was the reason for not stopping.

To the best of my knowledge there were no rules on refuelling at that time. I guess that with reductions in race lengths and the 1500cc. F1 it was considered it was quicker overall to run through without stopping. Refuelling would have been by churns which would have been slow anyway.

[Allan Lupton]

To the best of my knowledge there were no rules on refuelling at that time. I guess that with reductions in race lengths and the 1500cc. F1 it was considered it was quicker overall to run through without stopping. Refuelling would have been by churns which would have been slow anyway.

Agreed, refuelling was too time-consuming and really started to go out with the 1958 restriction to AvGas fuel.
By the time fuel consumption had so increased as to make it worth considering a fuel stop, the refuelling technology had improved.

Edited by Allan Lupton, 24 October 2010 - 12:28.

[f1steveuk]

Hi everyone,
I was just reading about Clark's '65 Indy victory and the important role played by the Wood brothers and the fuel tank developed from Ford they had used: see the link . The system allowed to put in 58 US gallons in 15 seconds.
I know that in those years wasn't infrequent for F1 to stop in the last laps of the races to add some more liters, maybe for a petrol consumption higher than the previewed one. So I wonder why wasn't such a system (or something similar) ever introduced in F1, not even after Ford joined Lotus in '67. A pit stop of, let's say, 15 seconds, just to refuel (we know that in that period they didn't need to change tires), would have been worthy, if driving the 1° stint with a car 80kg lighter, at least on some circuits.
Was there a maximum petrol flow speed allowed or any other restrictive rule?


Thanks for the answers (and sorry for my poor english),
Enrico

I may have this wrong but Peter Warr told me that the partial reason Clark was succesful wasn't to do so much with the Wood Bros, but more because Chapman saw the rig, and realised that the length and diameter of the actual hose would create what he called, the "plug hole" effect. That there would be a void in the flow as it swirled down, and "altered" the Lotus rig to prevent this happening. What he lost in flow rate he more than made up for in the qauntity that WAS flowing.

[Paolo]

When F1 championship started in 1950 cars were running 500 Km races, IIRC, and on a blended fuel largely made of methanol (higher consumption). I wonder how they did WITHOUT refueling...

[Geoff E]

When F1 championship started in 1950 cars were running 500 Km races, IIRC, and on a blended fuel largely made of methanol (higher consumption). I wonder how they did WITHOUT refueling...

They didn't. In 1951 the Alfas had a capacity of 65gal/295lit which was only enough for about 150km.

[RCH]

They didn't. In 1951 the Alfas had a capacity of 65gal/295lit which was only enough for about 150km.

Whereas the Talbot-Lagos were capable of plodding through on a tankfull, which gave Ferrari an idea...

[Paolo]

Whereas the Talbot-Lagos were capable of plodding through on a tankfull, which gave Ferrari an idea...

The idea being? Having bigger tanks themselves?

[Vitesse2]

The idea being? Having bigger tanks themselves?

Building an unblown car.

[David McKinney]

Whereas the Talbot-Lagos were capable of plodding through on a tankfull, which gave Ferrari an idea...

Don't think that's entirely true - certainly not in some races

The Talbots had to refuel during the race, but only perhaps once to the two or three stops the supercharged cars needed to make

[Vitesse2]

In answer to the original question, the FIA do not seem to have had any specific regulations about refuelling until 1972, when the International Sporting Code was extensively rewritten and expanded. There are various technical regulations regarding fuel rig specifications, hose lengths and diameters in the 1972 Yellow Book. Refuelling from "NASCAR cans" was forbidden from 1973 onwards and a standardised leak-proof coupling was introduced for all F1 and Group 5 cars from April 1st 1973 - this coupling was also obligatory in cars of Groups 1-4 which took part in races where refuelling was necessary.

[Charlieman]

I've been reading one of Doug Nye's books recently in which he reports conversations with with Gordon Murray. One of the reasons that Brabham introduced refuelling in the turbo era was that they couldn't carry enough fuel. A Brabham-BMW needed twice as much fuel as a Brabham-Cosworth, and there wasn't enough room between the driver and engine to carry it all. (It is worth noting that Lotus required an exemption to fuel cell rules when designing the 78; a single cell behind the driver quickly became the standard.)

There is a logical argument that the quick refuel/lower weight combination would have made it appealing before it became a practical necessity. I'd suggest that nobody did it because of perceived risk and cost. Quick refuelling required specialised equipment, more mechanics and more money. Pit lane incidents in sports car racing also suggested that each stop incurred additional risk: stalled engine, fire, over heating, human error.

Just as in the 1.5L supercharged era, refuelling was a necessity in 1.5L turbo times. I'm not clear when refuelling became a tactic (ie replacement for overtaking on the track) but I am delighted for the sport and for the mechanics that it has gone.

[Paolo]

Don't think that's entirely true - certainly not in some races

The Talbots had to refuel during the race, but only perhaps once to the two or three stops the supercharged cars needed to make

Was refueling done by jerrycans at the time or they had something more sophisticated?

[Chezrome]

There's a funny story in Mark Donohue's book The Unfair Advantage, which must have transpired somewhere late in the nineteen sixties. Mark had realised that if you put a refuelling rig on a stand, the fuel would come out quicker, just by the force of gravity. So he thought: what if put the rig at 20 ft in the sky?

Well, it worked very well... even too well. As Mark writes: 'Warren Agor was our fueler at the time, and he was a little afraid - no he was very much afraid.'

Very quickly, the SCCA immediately put forth a rule that fueling rigs could not exceed 12 feet in height.

[Stephen W]

I've been reading one of Doug Nye's books recently in which he reports conversations with with Gordon Murray. One of the reasons that Brabham introduced refuelling in the turbo era was that they couldn't carry enough fuel. A Brabham-BMW needed twice as much fuel as a Brabham-Cosworth, and there wasn't enough room between the driver and engine to carry it all. (It is worth noting that Lotus required an exemption to fuel cell rules when designing the 78; a single cell behind the driver quickly became the standard.)

There is a logical argument that the quick refuel/lower weight combination would have made it appealing before it became a practical necessity. I'd suggest that nobody did it because of perceived risk and cost. Quick refuelling required specialised equipment, more mechanics and more money. Pit lane incidents in sports car racing also suggested that each stop incurred additional risk: stalled engine, fire, over heating, human error.

Just as in the 1.5L supercharged era, refuelling was a necessity in 1.5L turbo times. I'm not clear when refuelling became a tactic (ie replacement for overtaking on the track) but I am delighted for the sport and for the mechanics that it has gone.

If the above is the case how did the Brabham-BMWs manage in the early part of 1982?

Belgian GP - Piquet managed 67 laps of the 70 finishing 5th
Canadian GP - Piquet wins
Dutch GP - Piquet second whilst Patese finished 15th 3 laps down

It was only when they got to Hockenheim in August that Brabham planned to introduce the refueling pitstops. However this was thwarted when both Patrese & Piquet retired before half distance. The following weekend at the Osterreichring the two Brabhams both executed their long-awaited refueling stops only for both cars to retire shortly after with blown engines - there was some suggestion that they overheated during the stops.

Edited by Stephen W, 25 October 2010 - 11:37.

[Tim Murray]

As I understand it (having just re-read the relevant section in DCN's History of the Grand Prix Car) the pit-stop strategy meant that the engine could be set up to allow extra fuel to be used to cool the turbocharger and engine internals. This obviously increased consumption but allowed much higher boost pressure to be used in race trim than had been possible when the cars were run non-stop.

[Roger Clark]

I may have this wrong but Peter Warr told me that the partial reason Clark was succesful wasn't to do so much with the Wood Bros, but more because Chapman saw the rig, and realised that the length and diameter of the actual hose would create what he called, the "plug hole" effect. That there would be a void in the flow as it swirled down, and "altered" the Lotus rig to prevent this happening. What he lost in flow rate he more than made up for in the qauntity that WAS flowing.

I thought it was Len Terry who conceived the improvements to the fuel rig.

[Roger Clark]

If the above is the case how did the Brabham-BMWs manage in the early part of 1982?

Belgian GP - Piquet managed 67 laps of the 70 finishing 5th
Canadian GP - Piquet wins
Dutch GP - Piquet second whilst Patese finished 15th 3 laps down

It was only when they got to Hockenheim in August that Brabham planned to introduce the refueling pitstops. However this was thwarted when both Patrese & Piquet retired before half distance. The following weekend at the Osterreichring the two Brabhams both executed their long-awaited refueling stops only for both cars to retire shortly after with blown engines - there was some suggestion that they overheated during the stops.

I think they planned to stop in the British Grand Prix.

The Brabham strategy allowed a lighter, and therefore faster, car running softer tyres which were to be changed at the pit stop.

[enrico_melli]

Thanks for the answers.
To summarize: until 1972 FIA didn't seem to have any specific rule about refuelling, so at the moment we've got to assume that they didn't do it because of perceived cost and risk. But I don't feel completely sure about this point, Ford had the rig ready (since Indy '65), and they could use it with Lotus from 1967, I guess, without an excessive extra cost; they didn't need many people around the system (4? see the pictures from Indy '65), expecially thinking that no mechanics were busy on tires. Maybe it depends on the risk, but I don't feel that sure (talking about Chapman).
And if it doesn't depend on cost and risk (but maybe it does) should I assume that the difference of lap times between full and empty tank wasn't as emphasized as I thought?
Have we got any "lap chart" of those years (maybe some some footage is enough) to check how faster were the cars in the last laps?
Did they ever discuss about this chance in Lotus (or in any other team), and why, if they did, was it refused?

Thanks again,
Enrico

[Roger Clark]

In answer to the original question, the FIA do not seem to have had any specific regulations about refuelling until 1972, when the International Sporting Code was extensively rewritten and expanded. There are various technical regulations regarding fuel rig specifications, hose lengths and diameters in the 1972 Yellow Book. Refuelling from "NASCAR cans" was forbidden from 1973 onwards and a standardised leak-proof coupling was introduced for all F1 and Group 5 cars from April 1st 1973 - this coupling was also obligatory in cars of Groups 1-4 which took part in races where refuelling was necessary.

I am sure that Vitesse is correct about the FIA regulations but I believe that some race organisers banned refuelling during the 1960s.

THe 1961 Grand Prix formula specified that fuel fillers should be hidden by the bodywork. This tended to make refuelling difficult. It was not uncommon for teams to have no fuel in the pits during a race - Gurney at Spa in 1964 - but nobody would plan a pit stop at that time.

I don't know when the rule about keeping the fillers covered was repealed but early 3-litre cars did not expose them.

[midgrid]

If the above is the case how did the Brabham-BMWs manage in the early part of 1982?

Belgian GP - Piquet managed 67 laps of the 70 finishing 5th
Canadian GP - Piquet wins
Dutch GP - Piquet second whilst Patese finished 15th 3 laps down

It was only when they got to Hockenheim in August that Brabham planned to introduce the refueling pitstops. However this was thwarted when both Patrese & Piquet retired before half distance. The following weekend at the Osterreichring the two Brabhams both executed their long-awaited refueling stops only for both cars to retire shortly after with blown engines - there was some suggestion that they overheated during the stops.

The Brabham-BMWs were marginal on fuel at most circuits (the 1982 Autocourse annual mentions Piquet's need to conserve fuel in several race reports), although this was often compensated by the sheer power of the engines compared to the NA brigade. Roger is also correct about the pit-stop strategy being introduced at the British Grand Prix. There's a good summary of it (taken from the official 1982 season review) on YouTube here.

Edited by midgrid, 25 October 2010 - 22:25.

[RCH]

Please excuse me taking this thread a little off topic but could someone tell me why sports cars these days have such small tanks? It seems somewhat absurd that they are refuelling after 40 minutes or so, can't remember now whether this started with Group C or whether it goes back before that. I remember thinking in the Group C era that if the concept was being promoted as an "economy" formula then to the casual observer frequent refuelling stops would seem confusing.

[f1steveuk]

I thought it was Len Terry who conceived the improvements to the fuel rig.

Ah well!! Gary C will be able to confirm this. I'm sure during the interview we did with Peter Warr, he said "and Colin realised you'd get his bath plug effect". Now that could mean that's all Peter knew, because Colin hadn't mentioned that it was someone else who had spotted it, or it's simply how he recalled it, maybe Gary could look at the rushes for the interview, I'll ask.

As for the Brabham pit stops. My old boss Eddie Baker was right hand front wheel man on those forst stops and I recall he said the tyre warmers were big tin boxes, like ovens, which actually ruined the compound rather then got the tyres to race tempreture, they were literally being baked rock hard.

[Tony Matthews]

Ah well!! Gary C will be able to confirm this. I'm sure during the interview we did with Peter Warr, he said "and Colin realised you'd get his bath plug effect". Now that could mean that's all Peter knew, because Colin hadn't mentioned that it was someone else who had spotted it, or it's simply how he recalled it, maybe Gary could look at the rushes for the interview, I'll ask.

As for the Brabham pit stops. My old boss Eddie Baker was right hand front wheel man on those forst stops and I recall he said the tyre warmers were big tin boxes, like ovens, which actually ruined the compound rather then got the tyres to race tempreture, they were literally being baked rock hard.

You also have to let air in at the top! At Bathurst, 1990, for 'our' first pit-stop, the quick-release filler hadn't been quick-released, and when the hose was plugged into the car, the large rectangular fuel tank just sucked alternate cheeks in and went 'boing, boing!', until, quick as a flash, I reached up and solved the problem. Unfortunately the refueller had removed the hose to see what was going on... OT, sorry.

[Tim Murray]

I may have this wrong but Peter Warr told me that the partial reason Clark was succesful wasn't to do so much with the Wood Bros, but more because Chapman saw the rig, and realised that the length and diameter of the actual hose would create what he called, the "plug hole" effect. That there would be a void in the flow as it swirled down, and "altered" the Lotus rig to prevent this happening. What he lost in flow rate he more than made up for in the qauntity that WAS flowing.

I thought it was Len Terry who conceived the improvements to the fuel rig.

Here's what Len Terry said in Racing Car Design and Development (which he wrote in collaboration with Alan Baker):

I think I made an important contribution to the effective performance of the Lotus 38 by designing a refuelling system that would give really quick replenishment from the gravity tanks which are obligatory in the pits at Indy. It was based on a venturi-shaped outlet designed to give good flow through the standard 3 in outlet of the refuelling tank; immediately after this outlet the pipe branched in Y form, into two 3 in pipes which delivered to both sides of the car simultaneously.

This improved system enabled the Lotus to take on 45-50 US gallons of fuel in under 20 seconds, thus gaining about that much time on each of the three compulsory pit stops. However, as is so often the case in these situations, the company held the advantage for the 1965 race only, since everyone else had tanks similar to the Terry design the following year.

I'd guess that Chapman probably had the original idea, which was then brought to fruition by Terry.

[wenoopy]

Nobody has mentioned the 1957 German Grand Prix and Fangio's celebrated win (which sealed his fifth World Championship) when Maserati used a strategy of starting 3 of their cars on half-full fuel tanks and refuelled them and put on fresh tyres at around half-distance.

I imagine the refilling was done with churns and a large funnel, but I can't remember seeing any photos of the refuelling stop(s). On film maybe.. In the 500km GP era, it wasn't unknown for drivers to come in for a "splash and dash" late in a race - like Moss in the 1956 Italian GP (where he also got a "nudge" from Piotti to help him back to the pits).

[john winfield]

Regarding 1982, I'm sure Roger is right in stating that the British GP would have been the start of Brabham's refuelling programme, but Piquet never made it that far. I wonder whether Toleman could have done a deal with Brabham on Piquet's retirement, bought the fuel and kept Warwick running until the end......

OT again, I was thinking back to a few late fuel dramas in the 1970s. At Brands in 1970 and Dijon in 1977, I assume that Jack Brabham and John Watson had no warning until the final lap, much too late to do anything about it. In both cases they finished second but, if they had stopped for more fuel in the final laps, does anyone know how much time they would have lost and whether the teams had the necessary equipment anyway?

I remember Pedro Rodriguez brought the BRM in for a splash-and-dash when leading at Watkins Glen in 1970. The Bourne crew must have had some churns ready I suppose. Did Tim Parnell know the P153 wouldn't last the distance or was consumption much higher than expected? I presume Pedro hadn't expected problems but began to experience signs of fuel starvation which brought him rushing in? The film clip I recall suggests Pedro's pit lane entry and exit speeds slightly higher than current regs allow! Rather like the BOAC 1000km that year too...

Edited by john winfield, 26 October 2010 - 11:21.

[Tim Murray]

It would seem they were expecting Rodriguez to stop for fuel. According to DCN in History of the Grand Prix Car 1966-85 engine development on the P153, as the season progressed, had increased its consumption from around 6 to 4.8 mpg, and the tank capacity became inadequate. Rodriguez had also had to stop for fuel in Canada.

Edited by Tim Murray, 26 October 2010 - 22:09.

[Roger Clark]

Here's what Len Terry said in Racing Car Design and Development (which he wrote in collaboration with Alan Baker):


I'd guess that Chapman probably had the original idea, which was then brought to fruition by Terry.

There was some dispute about whether the fuel rig was conceived by Lotus or by Ford. Doug Nye's Theme Lotus refers to "Ford improved gravity gear" but Andrew Ferguson's "Team Lotus the Indianapolis Years" says:

"Although Ford and Lotus both claimed credit for the design of the bowser outlet.... it was Len Terry who had produced the drawings. As we were the only team to get round the problem it obviously could not have been a ford idea as then all its top runners would have benefitted".

The article on the 38 in Motor Sport July this year at least implies that it was Terry's idea - no mention of Chapman.

None of which proves that it wasn't Chapman's idea, but it's unusual for him not to be mention in connection with any Lotus innovation.

[Roger Clark]

Agreed, refuelling was too time-consuming and really started to go out with the 1958 restriction to AvGas fuel.
By the time fuel consumption had so increased as to make it worth considering a fuel stop, the refuelling technology had improved.

The AvGas regulations and the reduction in race length certainly reduced the amount of fuel required but regular, planned refuelling disappeared at the end of 1951 with the 4.5/1.5-litre formula. Fangio's stop at the 'Ring in 1957 was very unusual by that time.

Edited by Roger Clark, 26 October 2010 - 13:49.

[f1steveuk]

Here's what Len Terry said in Racing Car Design and Development (which he wrote in collaboration with Alan Baker):


I'd guess that Chapman probably had the original idea, which was then brought to fruition by Terry.

Ah, I think I see the difference! What Peter said Chapman had modified was the hose, because I recall he had to wrap it in tape after the mod', and the powers that be thought it was just a decorative thing. What Peter was describing was the effect of the fuel leaving the tank, not he tank itself, so I wonder if I'm not a year late and the Chapman mod was the first year Lotus appeared. GARY!!!

[D-Type]

Nobody has mentioned the 1957 German Grand Prix and Fangio's celebrated win (which sealed his fifth World Championship) when Maserati used a strategy of starting 3 of their cars on half-full fuel tanks and refuelled them and put on fresh tyres at around half-distance.

I imagine the refilling was done with churns and a large funnel, but I can't remember seeing any photos of the refuelling stop(s). On film maybe.. In the 500km GP era, it wasn't unknown for drivers to come in for a "splash and dash" late in a race - like Moss in the 1956 Italian GP (where he also got a "nudge" from Piotti to help him back to the pits).

I'm surprised nobody has responded to this yet. They most definitely did not use churns. The Nurburgring also hosted the 1000km sports car race so the pits were equipped with refuelling pumps. Similarly at Reims in 1953 Gonzalez would have been able to use the system provided for the 12 hr race.

This was the case as far back as 1935 when Nuvolari made his epic drive. The handle of the refuelling pump broke and they had to use churns and his stop took over 2 minutes compared to 47 seconds for von Brauchitsch.

Edited by D-Type, 30 October 2010 - 17:23.

[wenoopy]

I'm surprised nobody has responded to this yet. They most definitely did not use churns. The Nurburgring also hosted the 1000km sports car race so the pits were equipped with refuelling pumps. Similarly at Reims in 1953 Gonzalez would have been able to use the system provided for the 12 hr race.

This was the case as far back as 1935 when Nuvolari made his epic drive. The handle of the refuelling pump broke and they had to use churns and his stop took over 2 minutes compared to 47 seconds for von Brauchitsch.

Hmmm, Yes.

You are right of course. I was misled by a mental picture of Moss's 250F being refueled with a funnel and churn - it turned out to be at the 1956 New Zealand GP where facilities were a bit less sophisticated.

With regard to Fangio's 1957 Nurburgring fuel/tyre stop, considering that it was a pivotal point in the race, it is surprising that a more thorough search of internet and of books and magazines, does not produce a single photograph of the pit-stop. Getty Images (Klemantaski Collection) has a very good action shot of Fangio's 1957 Monza pit stop where 2 rear tyres were changed, and the fuel hose and pump are clearly visible, with the nozzle hovering over Fangio's head. Jenks' "Motor Sport" report doesn't mention a fuel top-up, I wonder if it wasn't needed.

Was the fuel equipment supplied by the organisers, or by teams themselves. Two of the Sports Car Championship races in 1957 were run on fairly rudimentary road circuits, in Sweden and Venezuela, with minimal temporary pit facilities. How did the teams fare there?

Getting back to the thread title, I doubt that there were any rules at all relating to refuelling in the 1950's. Perhaps they came a decade or more later, along with the European Community and its bureaucratic maze.

[Allan Lupton]

Getting back to the thread title, I doubt that there were any rules at all relating to refuelling in the 1950's. Perhaps they came a decade or more later, along with the European Community and its bureaucratic maze.

Quite so - in the 1950s Grand Prix racing was conducted with the minimum of Rules, leaving lots of opportunity for alternative approaches to the task of winning races. That is why people of my sort feel cheated by the current rules which specify so much and in so much detail. Don't think you can blame the EU though.

[Geoff E]

With regard to Fangio's 1957 Nurburgring fuel/tyre stop, considering that it was a pivotal point in the race, it is surprising that a more thorough search of internet and of books and magazines, does not produce a single photograph of the pit-stop.

It has been caught on film though

Pit stop starts at 2m02s

[D-Type]

It's interesting that he got out of the car. Why?

[David McKinney]

Elfin safety - you didn't want that brew splashing down your neck

[Roger Clark]

I'm surprised nobody has responded to this yet. They most definitely did not use churns. The Nurburgring also hosted the 1000km sports car race so the pits were equipped with refuelling pumps. Similarly at Reims in 1953 Gonzalez would have been able to use the system provided for the 12 hr race.

I thought the overhead tanks used gravity feed rather than pumps.

[Roger Clark]

Elfin safety - you didn't want that brew splashing down your neck

Are you sure that, in some cases at least, there wasn't a race regulation that said a driver had to get out of the car while it was being worked on?

Most organisers certainly said that engines had to be stopped, another regulation that disappeared somewhere.

[Vitesse2]

Are you sure that, in some cases at least, there wasn't a race regulation that said a driver had to get out of the car while it was being worked on?

I did wonder about that, Roger, but the 1972 regulations include a provision that "it must be permitted for a driver to remain in the car during refuelling". Perhaps there had been some confusion or dispute at some point after seat belts were made compulsory?

[wenoopy]

Quite so - in the 1950s Grand Prix racing was conducted with the minimum of Rules, leaving lots of opportunity for alternative approaches to the task of winning races. That is why people of my sort feel cheated by the current rules which specify so much and in so much detail. Don't think you can blame the EU though.

I wasn't blaming the EU, but wondering if the proliferation of regulations in both spheres was a European fixation. Perhaps recent financial crises might have been less severe if building regulations relating to Houses of Cards had been stronger!

Thanks Geoff E : YouTube film very informative. Great athleticism on Fangio's part : out of the car as if on a spring, and then back in after the mechanics had already started pushing, and standing up on the seat for a while!

Modern-day enthusiasts might not realise how inconsistent race conditions were, in the 1950's particularly. Some organisers didn't want too many private-owners in the field (so Maserati included some of them in their factory entry), Belgian GPs often seemed to have particularly small fields (starting money problems?), while the British and Italian GPs sometimes had over 30 starting. Some organisers refused to allow portable starters on the grid and insisted on on-board starters. The Brits boycotted the Italian GP when they used the banked track, Ferrari got in a huff and withdrew his cars occasionally, but the sun still rose the next morning, and nobody got fined banned or sanctioned. Those were the days (I think!)

[D-Type]

I thought the overhead tanks used gravity feed rather than pumps.

That could well be the case . I should have said "refuelling hoses" rather than "refuelling pumps" - what I meant was "not churns"

[AJB]

I have a vague recollection about there having been a limit on the number of mechanics allowed to work on a F1 car in the 1960s. My old FIA yearbooks have disappeared and all I have is the 1972 version. A brief read of that shows a maximum of 4 in sports car events and no mention in F1.

Was there a limit in earlier years which subsequently was phased out, allowing refuelling and tyre changing to then be a realistic option for F1 races?

Alan

[wenoopy]

I have a vague recollection about there having been a limit on the number of mechanics allowed to work on a F1 car in the 1960s. My old FIA yearbooks have disappeared and all I have is the 1972 version. A brief read of that shows a maximum of 4 in sports car events and no mention in F1.

Was there a limit in earlier years which subsequently was phased out, allowing refuelling and tyre changing to then be a realistic option for F1 races?

Alan

If the story in "Challenge Me The Race" (Mike Hawthorn 1958) is correct, then for the 1954 Argentine GP at the very least, there was a limit of 3 pit crew working on a car. Ferrari's Ugolini apparently protested that Fangio's Maserati had 5 working on it changing tyres. The protest was disallowed by local stewards and by the FIA. The 1961 Fangio biography mentions the incident also, with an air of indignation.

The Klemantaski 1957 Italian GP Fangio pit stop picture mentioned earlier has about 15 people in close proximity to Fangio's car. Two are about to remove the rear wheels, another is swinging off the ground operating the jack(?), another has the fuel nozzle at the ready and 1 on the pit wall and maybe another on the track are holding the fuel hose. Three other mechanics are hovering around, there are three men in uniform and peaked caps (one with a fire extinguisher) and a woman (Fangio's lady Andreina judging by her hat) is jumping down from the pit wall to the track. Like a crowd scene from a Shakespeare play. I suppose if only 3 were touching the car (or 4 or whatever) at any particular time then it was legitimate.

[Vitesse2]

If the story in "Challenge Me The Race" (Mike Hawthorn 1958) is correct, then for the 1954 Argentine GP at the very least, there was a limit of 3 pit crew working on a car. Ferrari's Ugolini apparently protested that Fangio's Maserati had 5 working on it changing tyres. The protest was disallowed by local stewards and by the FIA. The 1961 Fangio biography mentions the incident also, with an air of indignation.

The Klemantaski 1957 Italian GP Fangio pit stop picture mentioned earlier has about 15 people in close proximity to Fangio's car. Two are about to remove the rear wheels, another is swinging off the ground operating the jack(?), another has the fuel nozzle at the ready and 1 on the pit wall and maybe another on the track are holding the fuel hose. Three other mechanics are hovering around, there are three men in uniform and peaked caps (one with a fire extinguisher) and a woman (Fangio's lady Andreina judging by her hat) is jumping down from the pit wall to the track. Like a crowd scene from a Shakespeare play. I suppose if only 3 were touching the car (or 4 or whatever) at any particular time then it was legitimate.

I think the nationality of the driver in the first instance and the team in the second probably tells us all we need to know ;)

[wenoopy]

I think the nationality of the driver in the first instance and the team in the second probably tells us all we need to know ;)

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

[enrico_melli]

I was just reading from "Champion Year", 1958 Hawthorn diary, after reducing races distance and by introducing aviation fuel, these words:"A pit stop of any sort would now be due only to unforseen circumstances and in a short sprint of two hours would almost certainly serve to put one out of the race however short the stop". If I'm not wrong avgas roughly had a density of 0.7 kg/l (and lower consumption than petrol?) so maybe this could shed some more light on the original question. Was avgas still in use in the mid '60s?

Ciao,
Enrico

[wenoopy]

I was just reading from "Champion Year", 1958 Hawthorn diary, after reducing races distance and by introducing aviation fuel, these words:"A pit stop of any sort would now be due only to unforseen circumstances and in a short sprint of two hours would almost certainly serve to put one out of the race however short the stop". If I'm not wrong avgas roughly had a density of 0.7 kg/l (and lower consumption than petrol?) so maybe this could shed some more light on the original question. Was avgas still in use in the mid '60s?

Ciao,
Enrico

Without researching the subject, my recollection is that the use of Avgas was a 'fix' made to clarify a vague FIA / CSI stipulation that 1958-1960 Formula One fuel should be 'pump fuel'. It was pointed out that 'pump fuel' varied from country to country, and that what came out of the pump nozzle depended on what went into the other end of the pump in the first place! I think this was regularised to a more specific fuel for the 1961-65 1.5 litre formula.