20 replies to this topic

[RedFever]

Former world champion Jackie Stewart has warned that refuelling cars during Formula One races is an unnecessary risk likely to end "sooner or later" in disaster.

"Refuelling is an unnecessary risk," the triple champion and former Stewart team boss was quoted as saying in the Guardian newspaper on Wednesday.

"The scale of a fire that could take place if the wrong accident occurred is far beyond the imagination of most people."

"With the type of tanks and high-pressure feed we use, the vapour factor alone would be explosive, never mind the flame factor," he added.

"Sooner or later there is going to be a big fire and unfortunately the nature of the sport is such that we will need a big fire for anything to be done."

The biggest recent pitlane fire in Formula One involved Dutch driver Jos Verstappen in 1994. His Benetton was engulfed in flames during a refuelling stop at the German Grand Prix.

Verstappen, who is returning to Formula One this season with the Arrows team, and five Benetton mechanics suffered minor burns in that incident.

The fireball also threatened the safety of VIP spectators in the executive "paddock club" area above the pits.

Mid-race refuelling had been re-introduced at the start of that race. Benetton were later charged with deliberately removing a fuel filter from their refuelling rig designed to eliminate the risk of a flash fire.

The team escaped punishment.

A new "decoupling under flow" method of refuelling was pioneered by Ferrari last season. It involves removing the nozzle from the car while fuel is still flowing.

The system has been approved for the new season which starts in Melbourne on Sunday with the Australian Grand Prix.

[yahoo]

If there was no refulling during a race ,it would be a bit of a bore.

Cars seem unable to overtake at the moment due to the current rules, refulling is the safest way overtake for the drivers.

Mabey if there were new rules, reducing the need for aerodynamic grip so car could over take.

[f li]

Let's see, Grooves in the name of safety! Engine size limits in the name of safety!
Ban ground effects in the name of safety!

Refuelling in the name of safety - that Verstappen incident must have added a viewer or two - let's do it again! What would really add to my viewing enjoyment would be the "executive paddock club roast" with BE MM etc. Hey, I'd pay to watch that!

No mandated refuelling!

[The Swerve]

Jackie knows what he's talking about here.

[EddieJF1]

Does MS have a thing with refueling? It was his suggestion about the refueling rig that almost toasted Jos and friends in '94. Now I see that he wants to roast Rubinho. It's his name! He's not a sandwich!

And how is "decoupling under flow" not going to cause a problem? I guess it's innovative to have the chance to spray fuel on a hot engine.

[This message has been edited by EddieJF1 (edited 03-08-2000).]

[Keith Steele]

f li, according to the Ecclestone interview BE, is long gone by the time refueling comes into play.

Why dont they use a gravitational feed like CART? Pressurized fuel is asking for trouble.

[Racemind]

Verstappen's fire in 94 was big, but not the most recent such incident. Eddie Irvine had a similar incident in 95, although I think he was uninjured.

No matter though, I'm still in favor of refuelling.

[f li]

Keith,

BE MM, Bernie and Max!!!!

[Keith Steele]

I know F li, in Bernie's interview he said he has a short attention span and gets bored after twenty minutes. He probably would be gone by the time refueling occured. But Max on a spit works for me.

[This message has been edited by Keith Steele (edited 03-08-2000).]

[mono-posto]

It said that this 'decoupling under flow' concept was pioneered by Ferrari last year. Does this mean that it was used in racing last year or just developed?

It's the top exiting exhaust that scares the **** out of me. The driver begins to accelerate the split second the nozel comes out. This places the nozel right in line with the exhaust as the car moves away and the refueler moves back. I would think that those exhaust pipes would ignite that stuff in a FLASH! Literally.

[silver fan]

Keith Steele- There has been more pitlane fires in CART in recent years than in F1, which rather disproves the theory that gravity feed refuelling is safer than the the method used in F1. Furthermore CART uses Methanol; which, while it has a higher "flash point" than petrol, burns with an invisible flame - making the job of putting out a Methanol fire that much more difficult and dangerous.

[This message has been edited by silver fan (edited 03-09-2000).]

[This message has been edited by silver fan (edited 03-09-2000).]

[Keith Steele]

Silver, if you'd be so kind as to refresh my memory of those recent pit fires. As an aside, I don't see how what type of liquid is being fed really matters but since you've brought it up. Methanol while burning clear is also water soluable which means its easy to dilute in liquid form or once ignited. And since the methanol would only spill from the hose as opposed to being shot out by pressure, makes it very easy to just shoot it with the water hose preventing serious risk.

[Mary]

F1 needs to get rid of the pressurized fuel rigs. In NASCAR they refuel the cars (with gasoline) out of a big can that a guy holds. Frequently, you see fuel splashing all over the place. Occasionally, some guy drives off with the can stuck in the fuel tank opening. I don't remember the last time I saw a fire.

I wouldn't use CART's system as an example here,though. I used to think that CART's pits were safer than F1 (mainly because of the limit on the number of people who can work on the car--there are too many people in a F1 pit, IMO) but after last season in CART, I changed my mind.

Mary

[silver fan]

Keith, my point regarding gravity feed vs pressure feed was that in the event of an overflow, a fire that you can actually see must surely be easier to tackle than one that you can't see. Granted with the F1 rig a spill will be larger as it is under pressure but you could argue that this risk is offset by the fact that a methanol fire is harder to contain as the size of the fire is judged by the almost comical sight of mechanics jumping about like "ravers". A case of "six of of one half a dozen of the other" me thinks. As far as supplying a list of CART events that had a fuel spill/ fire situation I hope my word is good enough as I am not in the habit of keeping tapes of CART races although a search through the archives section at a CART website, will I'm sure back up my claim. For know consider my statement an observation as opposed to a statement of fact, set in stone.

[Jonathan]

I say "Ban tire changes" unless a tire is flat, or it starts/stops raining.

With the Pit speeds what they are, re-fueling will no longer make strategic sense...

[Laphroaig]

CART has a couple of pit fires each year, most are 'splashed' out quite quickly with water. Sometimes you get the akward case that there is a fire when nobody notices, like Mansell when he got hit from behind by another driver during a caution period, sitting in his car shaking his head in disbelieve... stops shaking his head thinking "ouch, hot!" and gets out as quick as posible rolling on the grass )
The fuel rigs are tested by the FIA before being approved, now if we assume the FIA does their testing correctly all fuelflow should be STOPPED before the nozzle can be pulled out. That's in the regulations. The original rigs 'shot' a set amount of fuel into the tank, then closed all the valves and allowed the pitscrew to pull it out. Ferrari now seems to have ound a way to stop the flow, close the valves and pull out before the fuel reservior is empty ('easy' way? A button and some electronics!). The rig has been approved by the FIA, so we can assume that it still is within regulations.
Using gravitational fueling in F1 would be 'dull' now they enject about 12 liters per second. If my memory serves right CART has a flow of about 3 L/sec. This would mean that refueling an F1 car would take 4x as long (!!!) So we would get pitstops where it takes 6 seconds to change the tires, then, instead of waiting 2 seconds for the fuel to fill up, we'd have to wait 26 seconds! (hemm, would be hard on some teams heat-wise

[This message has been edited by Laphroaig (edited 03-09-2000).]

[Alfisti]

I agree with Stewart. Not for the safety aspect but the adverse affect it has on racing... i've ranted about this is other threads so i won't do it again.

[Yelnats]

It's not the refueling thats nessesarily dangerous (Look at Le Mans) but the rush in which it's carried out. If F1 is going to have fuel stops they should be restricted to 20 second miminum with gravity pressurised flow and engine shutoff.

The "lottery" effect of todays stops would be eliminated and tire stratagies would be brought into play, encouraging passing between drivers on different tire stratagies. F1 sees very little passing because it is run at near qualifing speeds in cars with fresh tires and low fuel loads. Intelligence would become an important factor in driving success and the "Lauda's" and "Stewarts" of today would rise to the top.

Banning stops altogetther would mean a fundamental redesign of the cars and would be better done during a major change in Formula rules.

The 20 second rule could be implemented ASAP and would put the competition back on the track where it belongs. Drivers would still be turning blistering "in" laps and the suspense of not knowing track positions until the stops are completed would still be part of the sport.

Silly and dangerous incidents like partially attached wheels and pit "barbeques" would be greatly reduced and F1 would take step towards it's traditional values, on track racing, instead of the circus of pit-crew scrambles that so often determine todays races.

One only has to realise that the 1999 title was determined by a farcical screwup in Ferrari's pits to understand the injustice to both drivers and fans of the current system.

[Keith Steele]

Silver, I'll take your word for it, the last pit fires in Cart were in 1995, from what I could find in my Autocourse's. My point was'nt for F1 to use methanol, although it certainly has its advantages. It was to not used pressurized fueling. Projecting a flammable liquid is dangerous reguardless if its jet fuel, diesel, methanol or gasoline. It wouldnt be like a few teams would have gravity feed and some pressurized feed. They'd all take the same amount of time still. The pitstops at the end of the race would obviously take longer as there would be less fuel(weight) forcing the gravitational flow to be slower. Though I've never see a normal Cart pitstop take more than 15 or 16 seconds to change four tires, fill the tank, and make wing changes.

[Turbo]

Keith - I believe Tony Kanaan had a fuel leakage incident last year. It was apparently minor and there were no injuries, but I distinctly recall two of the crews converging with extinguishers and an interview with Kanaan afterwards looking a bit ruffled but pleasant as usual. Don't recall which race offhand. I don't think this necessary says anything about CART vs F1 refueling safety, just mentioning it FYI.

I would like to see refueling banned in F1 and measures taken to restore grip and dramatically reduce downforce. This would be safer, would add additional elements of strategy, and would restore on-track racing. On the one hand, I suspect car maintenance strategy and driving style would create more speed differentials across the course of a race and create some overtaking opportunities. On the other hand, with grooved tires and high downforce retained, banning refueling might take away some of the qualifying lap runs (like MS at Imola last year) during races. Perhaps less downforce with slicks and without refueling would be a good mix--it was in the past.

------------------
Bring back slicks and turbo!

[Keith Steele]

Thanks Turbo, I dont have last years yet, and can picture the interview in my mind. The mind is the first to go.