Do you want Refueling back?

[N12ck]

I think it should come back, it used to have me on the edge of my seats while they would race out of pitstops and also the strategies were more interesting and there was more changing of postitions.

[komninosm]

A strong case on JamesAllen F1 on refueling:
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/.

This guy has forgotten that racing is not about stopping. Why create an artificial show if you can have the real thing. I hope from 2013 all the artificial show elements will be unnecessary.

It's not artificial if it makes you do the 305 km faster. It's out of necessity then. Artificial is the obligation to use both tire compounds and not whatever you like to make those 305 km in less time. Artificial is not allowing you to refuel mid-race.

[komninosm]

A strong case on JamesAllen F1 on refueling:
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/.

This guy has forgotten that racing is not about stopping. Why create an artificial show if you can have the real thing. I hope from 2013 all the artificial show elements will be unnecessary.

I tend to agree. I would like to see all mandatory stops removed.

We're not talking about mandatory stops. We're talking about stops that make you do the 305 km in less time. Those aren't mandatory. Each team gets to decide its strategy. Mandatory stops are created by having to use the soft tires. Refuelling caused stops that were increasing the speed of the car.

[WhiteBlue]

This guy has forgotten that racing is not about stopping. Why create an artificial show if you can have the real thing. I hope from 2013 all the artificial show elements will be unnecessary.

I tend to agree. I would like to see all mandatory stops removed.

We're not talking about mandatory stops. We're talking about stops that make you do the 305 km in less time. Those aren't mandatory. Each team gets to decide its strategy. Mandatory stops are created by having to use the soft tires. Refuelling caused stops that were increasing the speed of the car.

People need to understand that performance alone does not make great racing. Sometimes slightly longer lap times are a better solution for the sporting contest. This goes equally for the level of downforce and refueling. Sometimes less is more. Less performance but the return of on track racing is the solution, of that I'm totally convinced.

[Giblet]

If you have refueling your tank is not going to be big enough to finish the race, so stopping becomes mandatory, no?

[komninosm]

If you have refueling your tank is not going to be big enough to finish the race, so stopping becomes mandatory, no?

Not necessarily. You can always design a car that can take enough fuel for 305 km. But why do so, if refuelling mid-race makes you faster? It's not mandatory. It is good practice. Mandatory means there is a rules requirement for it, like there is for using both tire compounds. Deciding to do 1 or 2 pit-stops isn't mandatory. It is up to you to decide what is faster. Same with refuelling.

[komninosm]

I tend to agree. I would like to see all mandatory stops removed.

We're not talking about mandatory stops. We're talking about stops that make you do the 305 km in less time. Those aren't mandatory. Each team gets to decide its strategy. Mandatory stops are created by having to use the soft tires. Refuelling caused stops that were increasing the speed of the car.

People need to understand that performance alone does not make great racing. Sometimes slightly longer lap times are a better solution for the sporting contest. This goes equally for the level of downforce and refueling. Sometimes less is more. Less performance but the return of on track racing is the solution, of that I'm totally convinced.

Oh, so it's better for racing to just cruise around for half the laps in safe mode?
Refuelling allows great on track racing. Overtaking on track isn't everything, but I'd bet refuelling doesn't hinder that either. Besides the argument was about your erroneous usage of the word artificial (and mandatory from the other guy). Since you can't defend that you go off on a tangent as usual. When are you ever going to admit the slightest error?

[Giblet]

I know your stance, but a car designed to finish and fueled that way will have at least double the fuel weight of the two stopper and most likely to get left behind at the beginning of the race. They will be seconds slower in the opening stint, and unable to catch up.

Therefore you would be daft to have a car that doesn't refuel if others do have such a car.

If that logic is flawed I'd be interested to know why.

[komninosm]

[...]

[WhiteBlue]

[...] My point was a comparison between maximizing performance and optimizing conditions for a sporting contest. I said they are not the same target and sometimes it is better to have less performance if you get a better sporting contest. It has nothing to do with cruising if drivers are not driving at the qualifying performance edge of the car in the race. They will be equally hot to win a race and do everything they can to achieve that. The point is that the refueling ban will bring back the purity of racing and will force the rule makers and drivers alike to focus on the right sporting values instead of gimmicks. If you take away the artificial refueling action and drivers have no chance to pass with a reasonable performance difference the rule makers will be forced to remove the obstacles to good racing (excessive downforce and turbulence). It is better to address the root cause than feeding the fans new placebos each year.

[myurr]

Refuelling allows great on track racing. Overtaking on track isn't everything, but I'd bet refuelling doesn't hinder that either.

Actually past history doesn't support that - 2004 had rubbish on track racing despite refuelling, so we can certainly say that refuelling on its own does not make for great on track action. Cars will be, by definition, operating within a narrower weight range, closer to their designed optimum window. Lining all the cars up in performance order and then letting them run at close to qualifying fuel will not be a recipe for lots of on track action.

Without refuelling, and without an adjustable front wing, next year we should see cars change their balance throughout the race with a corresponding change in relative performance. Hopefully this will allow the best drivers to make a difference, getting the most out of their cars when the balance is off. It should also mean that the best car over the course of the race is the one with the largest operating window, rather than that with the out and out greatest performance when everything is set up perfectly. This again should allow for cars that don't necessarily qualify right at the front, but have enough race pace to make their way through the field. That leads to interesting racing as those cars try and make their way through, and the cars in front try and defend their positions.

[Giblet]

purity of racing

A very elegant phrase and one that sums up perfectly why I dislike refueling.

[ringo]

Refuelling allows great on track racing. Overtaking on track isn't everything, but I'd bet refuelling doesn't hinder that either.

Actually past history doesn't support that - 2004 had rubbish on track racing despite refuelling, so we can certainly say that refuelling on its own does not make for great on track action. Cars will be, by definition, operating within a narrower weight range, closer to their designed optimum window. Lining all the cars up in performance order and then letting them run at close to qualifying fuel will not be a recipe for lots of on track action.

Without refuelling, and without an adjustable front wing, next year we should see cars change their balance throughout the race with a corresponding change in relative performance. Hopefully this will allow the best drivers to make a difference, getting the most out of their cars when the balance is off. It should also mean that the best car over the course of the race is the one with the largest operating window, rather than that with the out and out greatest performance when everything is set up perfectly. This again should allow for cars that don't necessarily qualify right at the front, but have enough race pace to make their way through the field. That leads to interesting racing as those cars try and make their way through, and the cars in front try and defend their positions.

Wishful thinking. Fastest car is always fastest, heavy and light fuel.
2010 was not interesting. How can a slow car have faster race pace than a faster car?
You ever saw that in 2010? Race pace is directly linked to a car's out right pace. A slower car cannot suddenly be faster than a quicker one because they both carry more fuel. I myself thought it would happen but it hasn't.

[myurr]

Wishful thinking. Fastest car is always fastest, heavy and light fuel.
2010 was not interesting. How can a slow car have faster race pace than a faster car?
You ever saw that in 2010? Race pace is directly linked to a car's out right pace.

Maybe a little wishful thinking, but at the same time in 2010 we didn't see the effect of the changing balance of the car due to movable front wings (direct quotes from drivers support this). It is also true that some cars can be very very quick and grab pole and run away with the race when they are set up perfectly and conditions are perfect, but that others cars whilst not being able to match the outright pace in perfect conditions work better over a wider range of conditions. This can be seen in the Renault when Alonso won his titles, and arguably the McLaren of 07 and 08 - both vs the Ferrari that was quicker in absolute pace but was not as flexible over a range of conditions. Again direct quotes from Alonso support this.

And you saw this to a degree in 2010 where the Red Bull was often untouchable in qualifying but just about reachable in the race.

A slower car cannot suddenly be faster than a quicker one because they both carry more fuel. I myself thought it would happen but it hasn't.

Absolutely it can. Packaging may mean one has the more optimum C of G for the fuel tank. Another cars aero may be more affected by the change in ride height and rake than the other. These cars are so finely balanced that putting wet weather tyres on a car can suddenly make or break the aero just because the tyre is a slightly different shape and size.

The only thing you can categorically say is that refuelling leads to a narrower range of operating conditions for the cars to have to work in, and that this will reduce the chance of any balance and or pace differences between the cars occurring.

[SiLo]

People mention cruising around in safe mode, but they did that when there was refuelling, the only thing was you didn't know how many laps of fuel they had saved or whether there was even any fuel saving going on. It was almost like having turbos, people would use more fuel to go faster, it was obvious who was doing it, but the illusion it created in not knowing what they were doing was much more entertaining then them just saving fuel so they can finish the race.

I used to love it when Alonso would stick it on pole running on vapours, and when someone would drive really well and conserve enough fuel for just one more lap, which was always great to watch as they ring the neck out of the thing trying get a great in lap.

The 2010 season was defined utterly by tyre choices this year, you saw it in the last race. For Alonso and Webber, if they didn't make the calls themselves, the team screwed it up for them. But once they made their choice they had to live with it. When you could refuel, you could change that by burning lots of fuel, and coming in earlier for your next stop.

PERSONALLY, I enjoyed the racing more when there was refuelling. To me, there were more decisions, people did things differently, someone could put in a stonking lap and be set for the race because they had plenty of fuel on board. Sometimes someone would screw up, but they would have a light fuel load and there would be lots of overtaking. This year, if you screwed up, you stayed where you were because the other cars had the same fuel and usually the same tyre, and if you did a good lap, you generally stayed there because that meant you had the fastest car.