Sayshina wrote:
Ringo, during your refueling defense you made a comparison to fighter aircraft. You are in reality wrong there. A very large internal fuel load has historically been a deciding factor in air combat, and just a short list of examples off the top of my head would include the F-22, SU-27, F-14, F-15, F4, P-51 and P-38.
When was i talking about combat?
I am talking about range and fuel efficiency. And even in combat a lighter plane is a more agile plane. A large internal fuel load is a decider in what way?
explain that because if you have 2 F15 battling it out and 1 has half the fuel load, it will be more agile and be able to climb faster.
Combat pilots are trained to think in terms of energy. If one plane is at a higher elevation, he has more energy. If he has more fuel in the tank, he has more energy. You have to remember that empty tankage has very little mass for its volume, that a relatively large increase in total volume only requires a small increase in frontal area, and that both your speed and your agility are realistically dependant on your available fuel.
Energy in what sense?
More energy doesn't mean more fuel efficient. Any vehicle that refuels insteading of hauling a large mass of fuel for whatever purpose, will be lighter, smaller and have better performance.
You are talking as if if refueling returns the teams will keep the same huge 250kg tanks. They wont.
If an fighter plane can make do with a small fuel tank and take 3 refuling stops in mid air. I don't see the need to have a tank 3 times the size on the aircraft.
You don't see this directly in F1 because of the structure of the format, but you can find clear examples in other formats. From Nascar to Indy to 24hr endurance, anywhere you require multiple fuel stops they are forced to also require a maximum onboard fuel capacity. The original Audi deisel certainly have a number of advantages over its rivals, but one of the greatest was its ability to go a couple of extra laps between every stop.
We don't see whatever you are talking about in F1 or in street vehicels becuase what you are saying is not reality. Refueling is the cheapest most effective way to improve fuel efficiency. Not only that, but the cars can be pushed to the limit for the whole race.
I honestly was not aware there was such a thing as a fan of refueling. To my mind it's fundamentally anti-racing, as are mandatory tire stops, mandatory compound changes, grooved tires, ect. They're all examples of what happens when lawyers get to make technical decisions.
For drivers to push all out is anti racing. I want to see the rule changes make it mandatory to fuel the car once for the whole weekend and see how you like your racing.
Someone here argued that refueling was banned in order to promote efficiency, which runs counter to the way I remember things going. Refueling was introduced, almost imediatly banned (and rightfully so), reintroduced because they thought it would "spice up the show" and later banned when it failed miserably to spice up the show, because they hoped that banning it would "spice up the show".
Exactly no refueling is boring.
Meh, refueling is crap. All it's done for F1 is put drivers into waiting patterns, hoping they can "pass" the car in front of them in the pits so they won't have to take chances doing it on the track. Anything that takes the drivers destiny out of his own hands sucks.
I don't see it like that. Passing in the pits was exciting. I want both passing in the pits and in the race. Passing in the pits gets the viewers more involved and interested in lap times. Lap times mean nothing now without refueling
