Do you want Refueling back?

[gibells]

I said yes for the simple reason that Bridgestone resolutely refused to bring crappy tyres almost all season. The only race that stands out as something exciting was the Canadian race where the tyres weren't good enough, and the choices you made/way you rode them made a massive difference to the racing. If Pirelli can do that on a continual basis then I'd say we have a winner. If not, then I'd say it was just too boring without more frequent stops. On a whole, in the same way that Past racers have been amazing race stewards, I think a reformed OWG with ex. designers who can make a real difference (and who have no vested interests in any decisions taken), guys like Gordon Murray, John Barnard, etc. Perhaps they could influence the route taken in tyre strategy as well.

[piast9]

In my opinion it's not the refuelling that should be reintroduced. I think races would be more exciting if there wasn't the rule forcing using the same compound as in qualifying. Without that rule, without changing any other rule or durability of compounds we would have guys starting on hards then changing to softs and vice versa. Look how exciting it was in Hungary when Webber managed the soft tyres for long time and his pitstop was so late. We would have more of such situations.

[Pingguest]

Why should refuelling be re-introduced? What's so exciting about a fuel rig going into a car? What's so exciting about drivers waiting to do a pit stop instead doing an on-track overtaking attempt?

[auto saibot]

no, never

[alelanza]

No. I really don't see much excitement in refuelling, perhaps if you're not paying enough attention the pitstops may seem like a fun thing, but when you know quali weights, refuelling times, etc. then i don't see what's exciting about it.
As far as danger is concerned, this year's pitstops haven't exactly been a walk in the park, ask Yamamoto's crew; or consider the danger brought about by wheels falling off, a situation a bit more common this year than in previous times.
That being said, for the no refuelling rule to come into its own we really need to get rid of mandatory usage of two different compounds. And as said above, more aggressive compounds would help too.
Finally i fully agree that we need stable rules.

[segedunum]

People have very, very short memories if they think refuelling provided any element of excitement.

[Mr Alcatraz]

People have very, very short memories if they think refuelling provided any element of excitement.

I voted yes It adds another layer of strategy that I personnaly miss. A faster car does not have to be stuck behind a slower one for 1/2 the race when he might only have been there because of a mistake someone else made off the start. JMO

[gridwalker]

I remember 1994, when refuelling was first introduced : despite the fact that it was a brand new factor in the sport (at least, for me it was new) I couldn't help but be underwhelmed by the racing it produced.

Even by comparison to the years of Williams domination that had preceeded, refuelling made the races much more boring for me. Sure, teams occasionally got the strategy wrong and things got messed up, but it became a procession where drivers refused to risk anything on track because the pits offered an easier method of overtaking.

Another thing that people overlook when assessing refuelling is that is removes one of the great variables : as cars handle differently according to their fuel loads, some will behave better on full tanks than others ... conversely, some will be better when running on empty.

When cars are perpetually running low fuel (as they are when they can refuel) then cars will behave predictably, operating within the same narrow performance window throughout the entire race.

For good racing, you want cars to have a variable performance differential at different stages of the race, otherwise the fast cars just sprint off and the viewer sees lots of beauty shots as cars circulate on their own : refuelling removed that variable and I cannot say that I miss it after 15 years of excitement free sprint stints *yawn*

[Pingguest]

People have very, very short memories if they think refuelling provided any element of excitement.

I voted yes It adds another layer of strategy that I personnaly miss. A faster car does not have to be stuck behind a slower one for 1/2 the race when he might only have been there because of a mistake someone else made off the start. JMO

If a driver is behind a slower one, he should try to pass him. If overtaking is too difficult due to aerodynamics, than the aerodynamics need fixing. I can't see why this would justify the re-introduction of mid-race refuelling.

[mep]

None of this years races got improved by the ban of refuelling but many where decided after the start. Even with a superior car overtaking was not possible due to the fact that all the cars run the same fuel load and usually have the same tires.
There is no variation in race strategies because as soon as one goes on new tires all the others have to follow immediately.
The races become to predictable and therefore boring by this.
Guys you must see this and vote for yes.

[Arunas]

None of this years races got improved by the ban of refuelling but many where decided after the start. Even with a superior car overtaking was not possible due to the fact that all the cars run the same fuel load and usually have the same tires.
There is no variation in race strategies because as soon as one goes on new tires all the others have to follow immediately.
The races become to predictable and therefore boring by this.
Guys you must see this and vote for yes.

And then what? The refueling will be back? If some people are bored, refueling will not help them..

[Sean H]

It's simple. Have Pirelli simply build tires that will wear out.

Prime tires shouldn't last half the race. Options should be half the primes.

No need to reintroduce refueling to force more pit stops and strategy.

[Giblet]

None of this years races got improved by the ban of refuelling but many where decided after the start. Even with a superior car overtaking was not possible due to the fact that all the cars run the same fuel load and usually have the same tires.
There is no variation in race strategies because as soon as one goes on new tires all the others have to follow immediately.
The races become to predictable and therefore boring by this.
Guys you must see this and vote for yes.

I must disagree, as I think some of the racing this year has been some of the best ever.

I also think that since the cars don't carry enough fuel to finish the race, and everyone has to go into a fuel miser mode at some point that there is enough a differential to produce some great _on track_ racing.

I would prefer that all the cars had tanks big enough and were forced to take enough fuel to go the full distance, flat out.

The refueling added a false element to the racing. I did like the 2 vs 3 stop strategies sometimes, but this can be accomplished with tires as well. It can one of three ways IMO.

1 - Refueling comes back to offer up different strategies, but drivers are coddled and teams get them clear air for a few fast laps, passing someone in the pits (boring).

2 - Fill the cars to the brim, a mandated amount so every driver can go flat out. Unused fuel can be drained off and used next race weekend. No waste. You still get the chance to pass when your leading opponent goes in for tires and you get to do a few hot laps in clean air, then coming in and getting new tires.

3 - Make soft tires that can only last 10-15 laps, but have a 2 second advantage over the hard tires that can last 30+ laps. Keep mandated two compounds per race, but teams will have the ability to do 2 or 3 stops if they can keep up the pace. 10 laps with a 2 second advantage is 20 seconds, enough at some tracks to make up time and pass in the pits. These softs need to go off very rapidly when they lose their grip though.

I still think refueling is too dangerous and expensive right now for F1, and unfortunately, this is hard to disagree with, as it is a lingering factoid. If you bring back refueling, you put pit crews and drivers in more danger. You might be willing to put them more in harms way, but you must also see their side. They are here to entertain us, bot die and mutilate for us.

[segedunum]

Oh dear:

1. When refuelling was introduced the fastest car qualified on pole and the team then simply ensured that they short filled as necessary to stay in front. It provided no opportunities for cars behind to do anything.

2. In order to get around this race fuel then started to be carried over from qualifying to the race itself in an attempt to nullify the boring scenario 1.

3. Alas, all that did was to devalue qualifying and for people to question just how much fuel a driver and car was carrying.

4. To get around this we then got published fuel weights. Unfortunately, all this did was to ensure we knew exactly what was going to happen in the race and when a driver would stop, putting us right back to point 1.

In short, refulling was crap and provided no excitement whatsoever unless another variable, like staying on one set of tyres for the whole race, was introduced.

[Scorpaguy]

Other series can refuel...why cannot the epitome of motorsports refuel. I say make the cells smaller and refuel1. It can be made safe.