Getting rid of refuelling?

[gcdugas]

I essentially advocate for the race distance tire of 2005. Less marbles off line too. I think banning tire changes and refueling at the same stop would be best. If you must stop due to a flat spotted tire or a puncture, then you can't refuel. That is it. Each team should also submit their first pit stop window of two laps where they would not get penalized if the safety car comes out. After their first stop they have to submit a two lap window for their second pit stop etc. This could also be used to prevent a car from running out of gas if they had a puncture just as the tanks got low. They could only change the affected tire. Flat spotted tires could not be changed at a scheduled fuel stop no matter what. This would effectively give drivers the penalty of an extra stop if they destroy their tires.

They should employ my "pit stop window" submission idea ASAP to exempt those who need fuel during safety car periods. Those whose announced stops occur during the safety car should be the ONLY ones to pit during the safety car period. The pits shouldn't be opened to all.

Nick was robbed at Spain this year and Fernando was robbed at Canada last year and still nothing but talk has been done.

[ESPImperium]

No refuelling would be a good idea, yes. But it has its downsides, as Tomba has eluded to with the start of the race.

Id like to see the option for teams to go with a full tank and get to the end, meaning that teams like Force India and Honda (P20 to arround P10) geing able to go the whole race distance, but with the option of taking a harder compound of tyre so they can do the whole race without pitting, basically taking a 2005 spec tyre with 1993 fuel ruels.

Id make it mandotory that the top 10 drivers must make at least one pit stop using the prime and option tyres, as is the norm now. But id like to see any one out side the top 10 having the option to take no stops, a third choice tyre and save those 50-70 seconds a race to get into the mix and posibly take a race win.

Strategy wise, it would be a nightmare for the laymen and newbies to the sport, but for viewing, it would make it miles better.

I think the no refueling thing with a diffrent tyre would spice things up alot.

Those are just my thoughts.

[nae]

next up 'success ballast'

lets penalise those that design a fast car so those that cant or dont have a chance

tell you what why not make the pole sitter carry a passenger just to give the guys further down the field a chance


piffle

[Steven]

Well, I wouldn't mind having pitstops banned completely.

The strategy aspect has gone too far IHMO.
Drivers dont race, becuse they know they will pit in 2 laps, so there is no need to risk and overtake the guy infront, as HE is on a different strategy, so when he pits... yadda yadda yadda...

Also, it will eliminate the stupid qualifying method we have today, "ahh he is on pole, but how much fuel does he have.."
If he is on pole, that means he is on pole, good job, no questions asked.

We might see some boring races in the beginning, but that will probably change as drivers and teams realize that status quo wont give them anything. They will have to fight, ie RACE!!

Well, the strategy thing has only come so far because it is extremely difficult to pass someone. Hoping that the 2009 rules will have some effect on this, I think you'll be happy to see less importance for the stops.

All in all, I think the pitstop thing is just fine as it is, and I wouldn't touch it (maybe just limit the number of people for cost saving, but not too stringent).

[CMSMJ1]

We can keep pitstops but make the pit lane speed limit even slower to encourage overtaking and to load the stopping wndows towards 1 stop strategy.

The stupid multiple tyre compund rule needs to be stopped too. Let them use whatever is given - the 2005 tyres is a good call.

[Kester]

Before we remove refuelling from races you need to improve the abilities of the cars to overtake each other. Hopefully this is going to come next year.

If you had this years rules with no refuelling it'd be even more of a procession of cars with very little position changes for the entire race.

[Chaparral]

Before we remove refuelling from races you need to improve the abilities of the cars to overtake each other. Hopefully this is going to come next year.

If you had this years rules with no refuelling it'd be even more of a procession of cars with very little position changes for the entire race.

G'day Kester - I had actually taken those changes into account as a fate a'compli with a return to slicks and much more liberal aero rules for 2009 before I posted previously on the other changes I would like to see (sorry dream of) - your correct without the ability to overtake it would be even more processional and I would probably be off to bed after lap 5 instead of 20

[Ogami musashi]

I don't mind both, but with the fuel onboard the first part is effectively dull as drivers can't drive aggressively. So all in one i would prefer with pit stops but as said, if overtaking was made more friendly (not just because of aeros, but also tyres) then i think the pit stops would be just an added value and not an alternative.

That said i would like F1 to retain it specificities, that's high grip and team work.

So i'm not in favour of race distance tyres (whoses do not guarantee you less marbles, and only provide less grip), nor total ban on pit stops nor equalized cars.

As said, next year will be interesting to see the impact of the aero regs on the way races are done.

[DaveKillens]

I can understand the safety need to start a race with limited fuel aboard. Fuel still represents one of the most serious risks for a racing car. But instead of the current pressurized rigs, why not go to fuel rigs powered by gravity? A gravity-fed rig would be much slower, and thus a pit stop would be a major penalty. Since the cars start without enough fuel to finish the race, at one time or another they eventually would have to stop for gas.
Additionally, limit the number of personnel allowed to change tires. Personally, I believe four would be a nice number.

[Steven]

I can understand the safety need to start a race with limited fuel aboard. Fuel still represents one of the most serious risks for a racing car. But instead of the current pressurized rigs, why not go to fuel rigs powered by gravity? A gravity-fed rig would be much slower, and thus a pit stop would be a major penalty. Since the cars start without enough fuel to finish the race, at one time or another they eventually would have to stop for gas.
Additionally, limit the number of personnel allowed to change tires. Personally, I believe four would be a nice number.

Well Dave, I must disagree. I agree that F1 as a sport should become more interesting to watch in particular, but slowing down refuelling of pitstops in general aren't going to help any of that.
To me, Formula One is and should be the fastest motorsport there is, and it must remain technical. One major point of difference with any other series is the complexity of the pitstops, and I support to keep it that way. Therefore, when I said limit the amount of staff around the car, I'd say 10 people (two for the jacks, 2 for refuelling, 4 to switch the tyres and an additional 2 possibly to adjust wings, clean a visor etc...). And also... a limit must remain a limit, and not a spec what each pitcrew member can do, it must be up to the teams how they organise their stops.

[DaveKillens]

Maybe I watch too much NASCAR and Indy Cars.. lol

[Ciro Pabón]

Chaparral's links (thanks, old Chap, nice link): http://mag.gpweek.com/

On page 10, White Blue argument almost word by word:



My "gung-ho" opinion (and when I dont't have one? ):

We're duly repeating what Mr. Coulthard thinks.

Now, what about David? Well, Mr. Coulthard is old and he's not getting any younger, if you ask me. He looks into the rearview mirror and he thinks he's looking forward. Worse of all, he's "committed": I bet on him retiring to committees and the such. David Coulthard, the politician.

Or to put it in another way, Bizancio before the fall, discussing the sex of angels... :-"

... but no discussions about Alonso's complains on Ferrari's fuel rig, which means that the fuel thingie gives so many advantages to some teams that the chances of pitstops elliminated are something between zero and 0, nil and null or nothing and none.

On page 8, no threads yet about this (that I know):



The fans? C'mon, which serious activity in this world is made around the fans? Zero, 0, nil, null, nothing and none.

Circus and modelling, love movies and news, politicians and rock bands, those are the ones devoted to fans. Oh, and lately F1 (perhaps during the last six years, modbaraban? ).

Finally, given the current rates for the few drops of oil left in this world, I think that the reason teams could have for NOT filling the tank to the brim is the price of gasoline... No smilies here.

[pgj]

Allow tyre stops, but ban refuelling, what a great idea!

If F1 wants to improve its green credentials then it should allow manufacturers to develop engine efficiencies in the same way that KERS development is permitted. If a car had to carry its race fuel, manufacturers would soon develop engines that required less fuel. It would initiate a new spate of engine development that would have relevance to road cars.

In addition, it would improve the spectacle of F1. A driver and his engineer would have to decide at what stage of the race they wanted the car to hit its sweet spot and have optimum performance. At present, if a car has an advantage at the start of the race, it tends to keep it for the whole race because F1 is two three or four time-trials and the variance in performance amounts to the small handful of laps that a car can remain on the track doing hot-laps when a rival pits. The only time that we see anything like the variation that banning fuel stops would bring is when we get drying conditions.

Qualifying would also be improved if all cars had to be refuelled for each qualifying session. It would cause starting grids to be less predictable.

[Chaparral]

Absolutely PGI - but the ban on refueling applies only for the standard distance (300 Km 2 hour GPs) but refueling allowed for the 3-4 longer distance races (600 km 4 hr GPs) per season obviously - tyre changes (as many as you like in either standard or long distance GPs).

[timbo]

I don't know... There's always debate about "how to improve the spectacle". I don't understand that. So you had little spectacle last year? So, this year you hadn't 4 championship leader changes over the 4 GPs?
Or you had great spectacle in 1988, 1992 and so on?
I mean - give teams steady technical regulations and let them do their job!