Do you want Refueling back?

[WhiteBlue]

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

What is so difficult to understand?

With refueling the automatic high incentive to save fuel is gone. You have to replace it by a fuel cap which is difficult to adjust to each track and is difficult to police.

Naturally aspired engines are air restricted and will be used for two more years. They are not designed to be fuel restricted and the 2013 flow changes would have to be brought forward to 2012 to make it work realistically. Such a decision would have to be made in the next three months to be acceptable.

Without max fuel flow restrictions one would have to rely on restricted fuel amounts which should really be different for all tracks because the tracks require different full throttle percentages to generate the desired effect.

However one organizes the refueling with fuel restriction it is never as simple as just a refueling ban.

[747heavy]

What is so difficult to understand?

With refueling the automatic high incentive to save fuel is gone. You have to replace it by a fuel cap which is difficult to adjust to each track and is difficult to police.

Naturally aspired engines are air restricted and will be used for two more years. They are not designed to be fuel restricted and the 2013 flow changes would have to be brought forward to 2012 to make it work realistically. Such a decision would have to be made in the next three months to be acceptable.

Without max fuel flow restrictions one would have to rely on restricted fuel amounts which should really be different for all tracks because the tracks require different full throttle percentages to generate the desired effect.

However one organizes the refueling with fuel restriction it is never as simple as just a refueling ban.

It´s difficult to understand what exactly your point is, and what you consider the main goal and the main message, you think F1 should try to bring across.

From your earlier post´s I was under the impression, that the main goal was this:

The question is now: "How can I make the car as fast as possible with a limited target fuel use?"

So the FIA is going to define a fuel cap/target of whatever it sees fit xxx ltr/kg per race.
As she does now, indirect via the max. tank size.
And I agree with this point, in general - no problem
But for me this aim is totally independent from the refuel/no-refuel debate.
As you can achieve exactly the same outcome (only burning xx amount of fuel for 300km), with both systems.
Our planet will not see more or less polution, if you stop 2 times, or if you don´t stop, and still using a max. of xxx units fuel.

I futher can´t really follow your argumentation in regards to the fuel cap.
In practical terms we allready have a fuel cap, via the tank size. Some teams may choose to not using the max. permitted amount of fuel.
It would be the same in a pitstop scenario.
I see where, you coming from, that it is maybe less benefical, if you have to carry an extra 10kg fuel for 1 hr, before you can make use of it.
It´s a valid point-IMHO.
OTAH, I think in overall terms it is not the most efficient way, to make 24 cars carrying 50kg fuel which they don´t need right now, for most of the race distance.
It´s the equivalent to you and me carrying a 20ltr fuel canister in the back of our cars all the time, so that we can save us a tank stop before we reach our destination once in a while.

I´m a a bit puzzled why you would need to adjust the fuel cap from track to track.
The FIA does not adjsut the tank size from track to track now. The limit will be xxx amount of fuel, if you feel you can do with less on track xy, fine then you don´t use all.

There is no rule, that you have to use all your allocated fuel.
While I understand where you are comming from, and I fully respect your opinion on the general matter (pit stops), I feel that some of the arguments you use in support of your preference, are not very conclusive.

I don´t try to convince you, to like refueling, that´s totaly up to you, I just felt that some of the arguments you use, to convince others, are technicaly not well founded / sound.

Your opinion on the matter is as good/valid as mep´s, mine or anybody elses here, please just don´t try to claim a superior motive for it, as in wanting to save our planet. We can save it, and still having refueling all the while. - IMHO

BTW: Any of the FIA impossed limits are arbitrarily, one way or the other.
Especially forcing allmost any team to carry ballast around with a (too) high minimum weight rule, for no reason at all.
Abandoning this rule, would send the right message and promoting efficiency, aslo being more relevant for road car development, as light construction and the extensive use of composite materials is part of the "end game" for future automobiles. Independent of the source of propulsion, which could be an ICE an electric motor a combination of both or whatever.
BMW`s Megacity and McLarens MP4-12C are not using carbon chassis for nothing.

[WhiteBlue]

There is no such thing in the 2010 technical regulation as a restricted fuel tank size. AFAIK nothing like that will be in the 2011 and 2012 regulations.

If refueling is brought back in 2013 there may be a point as max fuel flow and tank size will be restricted from that year. If the figures are done correctly there will be no need for further incentives.

On the other hand teams will not be keen to increase race personnel just to get refueling back if the tank size is limited to a full race load. From the leaks about the future regulations it sounds like refueling is gone for the next seven years at least.

[xpensive]

But wouldn't we love to see the days of 10 MPa+ rigs, such as when McLaren exploded a tub, testing the limits?

[747heavy]

There is no such thing in the 2010 technical regulation as a restricted fuel tank size. AFAIK nothing like that will be in the 2011 and 2012 regulations.

If refueling is brought back in 2013 there may be a point as max fuel flow and tank size will be restricted from that year. If the figures are done correctly there will be no need for further incentives.

On the other hand teams will not be keen to increase race personnel just to get refueling back if the tank size is limited to a full race load. From the leaks about the future regulations it sounds like refueling is gone for the next seven years at least.

You are correct with the tank size for 2010/2011 and most likely 2012, as there is indeed no such limit.

As the FIA choose to impose some "arbitrary" limits for 2013 anyway, they could bring refueling back, and still sending the message they want to send (and perhaps saving the planet in the process).

Agree with your last point, which brings us full circle back to why refueling was droped in the first place, to save costs for the teams.
But this thought (saving costs) does not seems to be top of the agenda any longer, as now the teams will need to bring in some more people to deal with KERS and other new technology (which I think is good, but surely does not make the sport any cheaper). As we see it remains difficult to do it all, and as allways a compromise needs to be found.

Anyway, as I said, I do respect your PoV and I´m fine with the fact that you would like your racing/F1 without pitstops/refueling - nothing wrong with that.
But I can see, why others may like to see it return.
Why it seems that it will not return in the near future (before 2013), I would not bet money, that it will never return, nor that it will not return for the next seven years. Afterall, it would not be the first U-turn FIA/FOTA has ever made.
KERS 2009/2010 comes to mind.

Anyway, all the best for 2011 WB, looking forward to more educated debate with you.

[mep]

I agree that the primary reason for the refueling ban was cost saving.

In my opinion the argument to safe costs is one of the most ridiculous ones. Just put the costs to carry 40 fuel rigs in comparison with all the money spent for other things in F1 or just with carrying the tires alone.
From one of my earlier posts:

Do you know how many tires they already carry around the world? There are 1632 tires needed for one weekend at the moment. Two fuel rigs per team doesn't count much compared to this. If you compare those fuel rigs to the total amount the teams carry around the world and then this argument of cost saving becomes ridiculous.
They would safe more money if they do more races in Europe where they can go with their trucks.

The argument to safe costs might be the primary one but it’s a big fail. It’s like saving a few cents meanwhile you spent millions. Everybody must be aware of this so there must be a other reason.

While the safety argument carries some weigth, few of the other reasons given do - IMHO.

I agree this is the only argument that has some value.
Even it is a bit weak in motorsport environment and when we have in mind that the danger is still there and caused only relative small accidents.

Some hopped racing gets improved but several races this year proved the opposite.

So if all the arguments brought up so far have little weight there must be some other reason why refueling got banned. That’s my theory about it:

I remember the time when the ban came up there was a sudden hype in the news about global warming, fuel usage, green technology etc. Now a couple years later we have economic crisis and nobody talks about global warming anymore. However F1 was in danger to get branded as non green and losing its popularity. The people in charge had to react somehow on this but how can you make a high powered car green in short time?
That’s for sure not easy otherwise car manufactures would have done it long time ago. So they did some kind of trick they made F1 greener from one day to the next. They just hid the act of refueling. When the fans and the critics don’t see the refueling anymore they can’t see how much fuel is used. When you see the cars stopping 2 or 3 times refueling 8 seconds with 12L/second everybody can estimate very easily that around 100L/100km are used. If you don’t see the refueling you would never expect such a high figure.
Of course this changes absolutely nothing with the actual fuel consumption but the trick is working. You can see it on the fact that critics always complain about the waste of resources during the race but never about the resources wasted to carry the equipment around the world. That’s just because they don’t see it and can’t evaluate how big the business is. Every team carries several hundred tons of cargo multiple times around the world every year. A single plane just booked for a single team consumes much more than all cars together in the race. Strange that everybody wants the cars to save fuel. I don’t want to blame the planes but reducing the races to Europe where they travel shorter distances and with their trucks would safe much more fuel. It’s a matter of proportion. If you want to safe something you must focus on the things where much is wasted. This goes for fuel as for money.
In fact they take us for a fool. You must see little bit more than the things shown on TV.

[Giblet]

In my opinion the argument to safe costs is one of the most ridiculous ones. Just put the costs to carry 40 fuel rigs in comparison with all the money spent for other things in F1 or just with carrying the tires alone.

You are looking at this in a dollar rich but penny poor kind of way. There was a whole swack of cost cutting measures put in place, that all together added up. No T-Car, no in season testing, no high flow refueling rig and backup, etc. They all add up to real numbers.

Also, the teams don't ferry their tires from race to race, the tire supplier does.

The safety thing is an issue, but was not a fulcrum.

[WhiteBlue]

Internationality and fly away races are a backbone to the claim of a World Championship and the main attraction for sponsors and TV channels. This is the economic bed rock of F1. To change that would be idiotic beyond comprehension. Some expenses are vital to the working of a product or service. Internationality beyond Europe is such an indisputable prerequisite.

F1 can perhaps become greener on tyres as well if they fix the weakness of the cars.

[mep]

You are looking at this in a dollar rich but penny poor kind of way. There was a whole swack of cost cutting measures put in place, that all together added up. No T-Car, no in season testing, no high flow refueling rig and backup, etc. They all add up to real numbers.

Also, the teams don't ferry their tires from race to race, the tire supplier does.

The safety thing is an issue, but was not a fulcrum.

T-Car is another example, if you ban it you change nothing because the team still has to carry spare cars to the race. Also as I remember the t-car got banned because they changed qualy rules so it didn't fit to the new rules anymore.

Yes the tire supplier ships the tires but does this change anything especially when you look on polution?
Btw. hasn't the FIA brought the fuel rigs to the races?
Maybe thats a reason why they noticed it as a special cost factor.


@White Blue
I don't say they should stop all oversee races. They should just reduce them to a few like it was some years ago. Just as example a race in Korea is not really what we need.

[Tamburello]

Some teams perhaps may need to start basing themselves in Asia in the near future.

[WhiteBlue]

@White Blue
I don't say they should stop all oversee races. They should just reduce them to a few like it was some years ago. Just as example a race in Korea is not really what we need.

Korea is an important automobile producer. The Korean automobile industry is currently the fifth largest in the world in terms of production volume and the sixth largest in terms of export volume. Korea produces many more cars than the USA. So why do we think that Korea is not important? These facts are only posted because some people have no idea about the realities.

Back too the issue at hand, which is refueling. The discussion shows why things are rightly done as they are done now. It is because there is a business necessity. For the next two years the refueling ban has the objective to reduce fuel consumption. When the new fuel restricted formula starts in 2013 the ban will not be needed any more. Nevertheless I reckon that it will be kept in oder to keep F1 operations simple and affordable. Hopefully we will get enough entertainment from on track racing by that time so that the discussion will have long stopped.

[MugenHonda]

Refueling is not really need these days. The cars are so much better on fuel and the pit stops are so much safer now. I think it improved the racing.

[myurr]

WhiteBlue: +1

For me the important aspect is still that refuelling doesn't add anything to the racing in and of itself. Even for those who argue that it improves the racing for them, what it is really doing is papering over the cracks in the current formula that have limited the cars ability to race closely with each other. Pit lane overtakes and the additional strategy of planning when to stop in order to get past another car (which in reality usually just came down to who could stop the latest) could only add to the action as there was a fundamental problem with the on track action. I'd rather address that problem rather than continue to try and paper over the cracks.

[komninosm]

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.

I've already answered that. Frankly I'm a bit offended that you try to post a picture of me hiding in "defeat" and you basking in your self-proclaimed victory (as if there's something to win), which also happens to be untrue. Gloating is bad form even if based on facts.

Again, I don't have to challenge your "figures" about the ban on refuelling causing an increase in fuel efficiency because imo fuel efficiency isn't the purpose of F1 racing. The purpose is to win the races (within the rules). If F1 was dedicated to making better road cars then why were electronic suspensions and lots of other stuff banned? So your figures were [more or less] correct, but your point wasn't. Nobody said banning refuelling didn't create a slightly bigger incentive to increase fuel efficiency. You were arguing against a straw-man.

Also read what 747 said below you...

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.

Obviously within the formula is implied, but since we are now discussing what to put in that formula (refuelling) your argument is a bit fallacious.
Also, booster rockets are a false analogy for the simple act of refuelling. I've already explained to you (in the previous post) how tire differences are problematic, even if you artificially (which is bad form on its own) make bad grip hard tires.

When you say you like my new found writing style, what do you mean? I'm confused, honest.
I agree that this thread is now beating dead horse (I had given up when I "exploded", sorry about that, and I only came back to give links to the refuelling sensors I mentioned when "some" people ridiculed me and said they didn't exist, I'm still waiting for their apology), but there were some facts posted too, not just opinions. And some proper logical arguments too. On both sides. Which is why I disagree with your parting defeatist statement that "it's had its run". We're only talking here about whether it was a good or bad thing. We're not imposing rules. If you don't care about it why bother? Obviously it's not the highest priority item, it is only a small cog in the machine [that is F1 as a whole]. But in this little corner of the forum, that happened to be the chosen topic. No offence mate.

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.

I agree with most of what you say here or I disagree, but not strongly.
But one item seemed kinda ludicrous:
you triple the chance that cars will run out of fuel in a race
I hope I don't need to explain why.

For me the important aspect is still that refuelling doesn't add anything to the racing in and of itself. Even for those who argue that it improves the racing for them, what it is really doing is papering over the cracks in the current formula that have limited the cars ability to race closely with each other. Pit lane overtakes and the additional strategy of planning when to stop in order to get past another car (which in reality usually just came down to who could stop the latest) could only add to the action as there was a fundamental problem with the on track action. I'd rather address that problem rather than continue to try and paper over the cracks.

Please stop presenting your opinion as undisputed fact. Also stop patronising those who differ in opinion to you. You make some valid points, but also some uncalled for assumptions.

Finally, I see no one commented on my example in a previous post viewtopic.php?p=215731#p215731

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).

[komninosm]

hmm, how do i delete a post?