Do you want Refueling back?

[ringo]

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.

The key word there is conditions. Those are part of the peripheral factors that artificially warp a race.
The Renault was not slower if it was faster on a day. It was simply faster at a certain track becuase it was the better and faster car. I see the renault as the best car in 2006 and 2005, michelin tyres and all.
It's not a good example of a car being slow at a certiain track, but becuase of the fuel it puts on at the start, it becomes faster than a heavily fueled car which was faster in practice and qualifying.

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.

Yes, but it was still faster. It was never on pole to suddenly be slower on heavy fuel. Secondly Webber and Vettel were pretty inconsistent in there driving or had technical niggles and still were faster light to flag in most races. No form of fuel juggling could make the ferrari or Mclaren faster.
Those cars were only faster on tracks that suited them, they weren't faster becuase of fuel strategy.

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.

That's pushing it. I would imagine all teams have a fuel cell pretty much at the floor height. The cars start with full tanks and the tanks are all similarly sized especially height. I don't think a mere COG change can gain a car 5 tenths in lap time, when in pratice the faster car's heavy runs are faster as well.

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.

I can't say anything about that becuase I don't know. But that has nothing to do with refuelling and is not a strategy. It's simply a car being faster in the wet.
I don't want to pray car x gets to use wet weather tyres so it can get to see the gear box of car y. With other sports weather is not needed for competition.

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.

false. Refueling doesn't mean all teams pitstop the same time for the same amount of fuel. What you say is what is happening now, All teams with virtually the same fuel weight and same pit stop strategy.
2010 was boring without weather and Lewis Hamilton trying some risky moves.

[komninosm]

purity of racing

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

How is it pure to not allow a smart strategy that makes you do the 305 km in less time? Racing isn't only about wheel to wheel action, that's just part of it (except for NASCAR).
Also, unless you disallow all pit-stops (tires too) you will always have overtakes during them. Not to mention that the rule that makes it obligatory to use both tire compounds is making racing further impure.

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.

As Ringo said, that was more due to the driver inconsistency and mechanical problems. Also they didn't need to push for the race so they held back A LOT. This year was Red Bull's to lose. Very few races did they have to fight other teams, usually only themselves. The qualifying was the truer difference in pace. The race was covered up by safe mode cruising and reliability issues. Refuelling would not have made it worse, probably better.

[komninosm]

[...] 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.

The Princess Bride (1987) :
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Refuelling is not an artificial "obligation", it is a "need for speed" . Unless you mean the action [pit overtakes?] that comes from it, is "artificial". I could agree to that, but it's no more artificial than tire pit-stops action. There's a reason the winner of the race isn't the one who does the fastest lap, but the one who finishes the 305 km first. In some kind of motor races (like rally) there are no overtakes (on track) at all you know.

No refuelling makes the engine situation even worse. Already cars are being driven in safe mode to reduce engine wear, no refuelling gives another reason to go slow, take it easy. Personally I think that races should be independent. No race should (have to) affect the previous one or the next. And the mandate to use both tire compounds is totally against the spirit of motor racing.

EDIT:
Some of you keep saying that soft tires aren't faster enough than hard tires. The only way to make a 2 stop strategy work (better than 1 stop) is for soft tires to be that much faster than hard tires. Having to use both tire compounds makes this even harder because you're not comparing stints of hard-hard Vs soft-soft-soft, but more like soft-hard to soft-soft-hard (or other combinations). Even if that silly rule was to disappear, you'd still have the problem that even if you are on pole, you have to make enough of a gap by 2/3 of the race or you have to overtake the cars that were behind you.
Now here comes the tricky part. Tires do not degrade by laps. They degrade by usage (assuming we get semi-linear tire wear again instead of the softs that last all the race with ups and downs). If you make the hard tire artificially much slower so that it pays to use the soft one with more stops, then a smart driver might simply use soft tires and go easy on them. He will still be faster than the artificially slow hard tires and make it on 1 stop. This is why refuelling is NEEDED (usually) to make a 2 stop strategy work. It is an added reason to make a car, that pits more, faster enough to make up for the delay*. Without refuelling pit-stop variation is dead in the water. All the (winning) teams will do the same strategy (1 stop in most circuits, 2 in some).

*=not only faster on track but faster pit-stops too; when you did only 1 pit-stop, you had to stay a lot of time for all that fuel, while on 2 pit-stops your pit-stops were faster (individually).

[Giblet]

Refueling in the grand scheme of things is a new development, and getting to the end of a 305 km race fastest is not the sole issue. It's getting to305 km within a set of rules, or better worded: "within the formula".

Booster rockets for everyone would get them to complete the race quicker but it's still not "pure". I also don't think mandatory tire stops are good but keep in mind the current tire stop situation was brought about while refueling was active to attempt to bring some speed differential between the cars. The tires need to have more difference so teams can use them more strategically, like Kobyashi was able to do.

I like your new found writing style kom but this thread is all about opinion and I don't see anyone changing their stance and this horse we are beating has been dead for some time.

Refueling had a good run but it's time to explore other avenues. Come 2013 there will be lots of new factors for years until all cars start to converge in design again. The simple cars lack of parity should make on track action more involved.

[WhiteBlue]

It is no secrete that I would like mandatory tyre stops to be banned as well. The tyre supplier can bring all kind of tyres that he likes or the rule makers ask him to do IMO. But mandatory tyre changes are against the spirit of pure racing and they are artificial. They only exist for commercial reasons and as placebo because the rule makers do not address the root problem: The lack of overtaking.

I would also invite komninosm a third time to challenge my figures that show why a refueling ban is a better incentive for efficiency than refueling. The post was made on December 1st in this thread Link and he still hasn't commented. If there is no answer I assume that my point is accepted and that he was wrong.

[timbo]

It is no secrete that I would like mandatory tyre stops to be banned as well. The tyre supplier can bring all kind of tyres that he likes or the rule makers ask him to do IMO. But mandatory tyre changes are against the spirit of pure racing and they are artificial. They only exist for commercial reasons and as placebo because the rule makers do not address the root problem: The lack of overtaking.

I think commercial reasons are most important.
I also think that the rule about two compounds only (dry tyres) and mandatory stops are driven by tyre supplier.

[ringo]

It is no secrete that I would like mandatory tyre stops to be banned as well. The tyre supplier can bring all kind of tyres that he likes or the rule makers ask him to do IMO. But mandatory tyre changes are against the spirit of pure racing and they are artificial. They only exist for commercial reasons and as placebo because the rule makers do not address the root problem: The lack of overtaking.

I would also invite komninosm a third time to challenge my figures that show why a refueling ban is a better incentive for efficiency than refueling. The post was made on December 1st in this thread Link and he still hasn't commented. If there is no answer I assume that my point is accepted and that he was wrong.

Are you saying refueling is less efficient?
Would you fill your car up with a month's worth of fuel?

[myurr]

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.

false. Refueling doesn't mean all teams pitstop the same time for the same amount of fuel. What you say is what is happening now, All teams with virtually the same fuel weight and same pit stop strategy.
2010 was boring without weather and Lewis Hamilton trying some risky moves.

You utterly misunderstand my point - it's not about the cars having differing fuel weights in them it's about different cars reacting differently to those weights. Ultimately a similar amount of fuel will be used by the cars over the course of the race, with out without refuelling. Different fuel strategies allow for overtaking in the pit lane with a minimal chance of an on track overtake, however different car balances throughout the race should help give differences in on track pace that will hopefully encourage on track overtaking. We didn't get to see that this year due to the adjustable front wing being used to dial out any car problems.

[myurr]

It is no secrete that I would like mandatory tyre stops to be banned as well. The tyre supplier can bring all kind of tyres that he likes or the rule makers ask him to do IMO. But mandatory tyre changes are against the spirit of pure racing and they are artificial. They only exist for commercial reasons and as placebo because the rule makers do not address the root problem: The lack of overtaking.

I would also invite komninosm a third time to challenge my figures that show why a refueling ban is a better incentive for efficiency than refueling. The post was made on December 1st in this thread Link and he still hasn't commented. If there is no answer I assume that my point is accepted and that he was wrong.

Are you saying refueling is less efficient?
Would you fill your car up with a month's worth of fuel?

No you have it backwards. WhiteBlue is correctly saying that having to carry a full race worth of fuel is a better incentive to increasing the efficiency of the cars (which is likely to be more road relevant) than allowing several fuel stops throughout the race.

[mep]

F1 doesn't need to be road relevant.
A race car has nothing in common with a car for series production.
Those cars are built for a completely different purpose so you can't argue like that. In fact a race car is more efficient when you refuel it. Otherwise they would not do it. The difference is just that you judge a road car with its fuel consumption but a race car is judged by its speed to cover a given distance.

[WhiteBlue]

F1 doesn't need to be road relevant.
A race car has nothing in common with a car for series production.
Those cars are built for a completely different purpose so you can't argue like that. In fact a race car is more efficient when you refuel it. Otherwise they would not do it. The difference is just that you judge a road car with its fuel consumption but a race car is judged by its speed to cover a given distance.

That wasn't the issue we disputed. The question was which would be the higher incentive to reach the FiA energy efficiency targets. I was saying that allowing refueling back was sending all the wrong incentives. Having to carry the race fuel is a stronger incentive than allowing refueling. The heavier weight of the car makes teams use less fuel than the advantage of getting shorter refueling times.

The question of fuel efficiency of race cars is not only restricted to the issue of road car relevance. There is a wider issue here. Everyone on this planet must use much less primary energy in the future than we have in the past and do now. The natural resources are limited and there is an ever increasing part of the global population that is taking it's share. There is no alternative to energy efficiency.

F1 cars are showcased as much as the drivers. There is a constructor championship to fundamentally express that. It means that the construction has to be guided by the basic principles of the federation which includes global fuel efficiency targets.

It follows that the question is not: "How can I make the car as fast as possible irrespective of the fuel I use?" The question is now: "How can I make the car as fast as possible with a limited target fuel use?" It is a paradigm shift which some of us seem to have missed. Nevertheless the shift is a reality and cannot be argued away.

[747heavy]

Why I don´t disspute what you say WB, and don´t have any problem with the underlying idea. (being mindful of the usage of limited ressources)

I´m not quite sure what it has to do with the refueling discussion.
It is technicaly absolute no problem, to limit the max. allowed fuel usage, to let´s say 100kg per race, combine it with a xx g(ml)/sec. fuel flow limit, if there is the need for it, and still being able to split 100kg into, let´s say 3x 33.33kg etc., and having refueling during a race.

In fact, it is much more efficient (F=m*a)to carry less weigth/mass, and thereby saving overall, by not beeing forced to accelerate and deccelerate the full 100kg all the time.

One is not exclusive of the other, so we easliy could have both.
(limiting overall fuel consumtion and still having refueling).
I can´t really see the problem with that.

In fact many touring car racing series around the world are doing just that, limiting total allowed fuel usage,and having low fuel qualifying, while still making use of refueling during the race.
Best of both worlds if you like.

Just that the FIA/F1 choose to do it in one specific way, refueling without a total fuel usage limit and qualifying on race fuel (first stint) levels, does not mean, that this is the only possible way to do it.
You can easily have refueling and still sending all the right signals, if this is what you want to do.

IIRC refueling was abandoned for cost reasons, and not for safety or any other reason mentioned during the debate on here.
While the safety argument carries some weigth, few of the other reasons given do - IMHO.

That you personal don´t like pitstops, is fine, and you are absolutely entitled to hold that opinion, but please let´s not mud the water with some pseudo arguments in support of your preferences.

[WhiteBlue]

I agree that the primary reason for the refueling ban was cost saving. But the discussion leading to the decision did consider other aspects as well. I remember that David Coulthard wrote a very considerate article on banning refueling in 2007 or 2008 which convinced me about the merits of the rule change long before it was actually decided.

It is also true that one could possibly refuel cars and run a limited fuel budget at the same time, but that is not what the current engines were designed to do. They are by design air limited engines and if you do two refueling stops - as usual in F1 - you triple the chance that cars will run out of fuel in a race. That is not such a desirable aspect. The current rules also do not foresee a fuel cap. The fuel weight is the incentive to reduce consumption. You would have to replace a self reinforcing automatic mechanism with an arbitrarily set fuel limit that would have to be correctly computed for every one of the different circuits. It is not very elegant.

Historically there is also no practical experience with a combination of a fuel cap and refueling. There are good reasons for it. The rule would be a nightmare to police. All the fuel quantities for refueling would have to be handled under positive and immediate control of the FiA to avoid cheating. That means a massive increase in scrutineering and cost.

[747heavy]

You would have to replace a self reinforcing automatic mechanism with an arbitrarily set fuel limit that would have to be correctly computed for every one of the different circuits. It is not very elegant.

Could you elaborate on this a little bit more please, as I´m not sure where you are going with it.
Why doe we need a different fuel limit for different tracks?
I´m pretty sure xx Kg/ltr. would do it, as it does now.
I can´t quite follow you on the last part of your statement.
The turbo engines from 2013 onwards are most likely not air limited.

- the current engines where not designed with a fuel budget in mind anyway, but they seem to work with one quite well (as we have seen in 2010), can´t really see a great technical challenge in it.

- in regards to your last point. Yes it will require some scutineering, as all rules do.
But I can´t really see that beeing more of a problem then policing a KERS storage limit or a max. fuel tank size etc.
Surely easier then to police and enforce a flexible bodywork rule.

I can ensure you, out of expirience, that even a low tech series , such as Brazilian Stockcars have a handle on this, and are able to police the max. fuel budget. No big deal really.

low weight/Low consumption = less fuel weight was and always will be a strong incentive in any form of racing (F=mm*a), unless the governing body set´s artifical high minimum weight limits to either to help some competitors to be/remain competetive with their choosen engine concept or to promote "energy efficiency" with systems like KERS, which turns physics on it´s head - IMHO

[ringo]

It is no secrete that I would like mandatory tyre stops to be banned as well. The tyre supplier can bring all kind of tyres that he likes or the rule makers ask him to do IMO. But mandatory tyre changes are against the spirit of pure racing and they are artificial. They only exist for commercial reasons and as placebo because the rule makers do not address the root problem: The lack of overtaking.

I would also invite komninosm a third time to challenge my figures that show why a refueling ban is a better incentive for efficiency than refueling. The post was made on December 1st in this thread Link and he still hasn't commented. If there is no answer I assume that my point is accepted and that he was wrong.

Are you saying refueling is less efficient?
Would you fill your car up with a month's worth of fuel?

No you have it backwards. WhiteBlue is correctly saying that having to carry a full race worth of fuel is a better incentive to increasing the efficiency of the cars (which is likely to be more road relevant) than allowing several fuel stops throughout the race.

The incentive a gesture and is different than the reality. Reality is that refueling for the same power output would use less fuel and be more efficient. The incentive of a full tank of fuel is to be mindful of the effects of carrying the feul and to use it wisely to reduce the required starting weight, but it doesn't change the fact that it's more fuel for the race distance. As careless as refueling anytime you run out sounds, it's just so happens that for the similar power output, running 1/3 the fuel weight reduces the demand from the engine greatly.
I'm of the opinion as well that the cars could run maybe more than 800hp with refueling and still use the same or less fuel than with non refueling; i haven't worked it out, but i think it's possible.

The good intentions of the incentive don't change the facts.