Refuelling 2017

[SectorOne]

A meeting of sporting directors in Monaco on Friday concluded that refuelling would add about a million euros to each team's annual budget.

A million euros?

Fuel still needs to be transported so that is out of the cost. Is the fuel rig made out of tungsten?

Anyways, apparently Sauber´s budget for 2014 was 85 million.
This million on top of that would be an increase of 1,1% of their budget.

[bhall II]

Yeah, I guess it would be burdensome if teams had to start lugging around a couple of refueling rigs again.



















F1 deserves its fate.

[iotar__]

What exactly is the point here, they can afford motorhomes so they can waste even more money on useless refuelling? Marussia that went bankrupt recently with tenths of millions of debt also has a motorhome. It's Ecclestone type of argument. Similar to the one he invented recently about another awful change - customer cars, it's good because there won't be pay drivers (like Perez I guess). Maybe but A. there will be a two tier joke formula. That doesn't solve anything in terms of drivers' chances . B. money that doesn't go to midfield teams will go to low cost/low reward guinea pig teams with copied cars, a miracle solution. I wonder how "pureness and pinnacle" crowd disgusted with lap times and not pushing 100% tyres will explain half of the grid of copied cars and two tier fake racing.

Refuelling is only change for the worse, it removes most of strategies and competitiveness in the beginning of races in exchange for illusion of speed. People advocating it should really re-watch older races and not rely on nostalgic memories.

[bhall II]

The point is the sport's misplaced priorities. Given the obvious willingness to spend megabucks on things that have no direct bearing on what happens on-track, a refusal to implement refueling on cost grounds is highly disingenuous.

Beyond that, if the ultimate goal of the 2017 overhaul is to make the cars five to six seconds quicker, why in the world would you not take advantage of what's most likely the easiest/cheapest change possible? That sort of baffling logic is every bit as mindless as the FIA's recent move to solve all the sport's ills with a ban on helmet livery changes.

They're not paying attention.

Refuelling is only change for the worse, it removes most of strategies and competitiveness in the beginning of races in exchange for illusion of speed. People advocating it should really re-watch older races and not rely on nostalgic memories.

I think people should also realize that correlation does not equal causation.

Most of the previous refueling era took place amidst a tire war that produced rubber specifically designed to give maximum performance throughout every lap of every stint. Fuel strategy then became the only strategy by default, and it became predictable because the engines were all the same.

In other words, it was exactly like current tire strategy.

I think those who have a problem with refueling actually have a problem with strict engine rules that don't allow for any variation. Because as long as cars have the same fuel consumption, which the current formula demands, refueling/not refueling is inconsequential. It can only make the cars quicker.

[zeph]

I think those who have a problem with refueling actually have a problem with strict engine rules that don't allow for any variation. Because as long as cars have the same fuel consumption, which the current formula demands, refueling/not refueling is inconsequential. It can only make the cars quicker.

I have previously argued that the engine manufacturers should be free to choose what sort of configuration they want:

I think it would have been fair and interesting to allow different engine formulas with the same set of fuel quantity and flow restrictions. That way, competition would have quickly shown which approach would have been the best.

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 91#p555391

However, while you make a solid argument that refueling was not solely to blame for the lack of overtaking, I still believe it would merely add another strategic angle, thus further reducing on-track action.
I think racing with max fuel load demands more from the driver, as he has to adapt to the changing weight and driving characteristics/dynamics of the car over the length of the race. If the idea is that the driver should make the difference, I'd say this needs to stay.

We just need to get rid of the gumball tires.

[F1NAC]

We just need to get rid of the gumball tires.

Yes this is one of fhe main problems but is not due to Pirelli. Bernie doesnt like rock like tires. It would be interesting if pirelli starts demanding more durable tires. And we already read that michelin also wants to enter but only if they can build more durable tires
This could put bernie in the corner

[bhall II]

However, while you make a solid argument that refueling was not solely to blame for the lack of overtaking, I still believe it would merely add another strategic angle, thus further reducing on-track action.
I think racing with max fuel load demands more from the driver, as he has to adapt to the changing weight and driving characteristics/dynamics of the car over the length of the race. If the idea is that the driver should make the difference, I'd say this needs to stay.

We just need to get rid of the gumball tires.

For the record, not only do I not think refueling was solely to blame for any lack of overtaking, I don't think it was in any way responsible at all. Overtaking is about performance differential, and any characteristic of performance that's the same for all teams, like fuel consumption for engines that are all practically identical, might as well not even exist.

It's sorta like the saying, "If everything is [x], then nothing is [x]."

As far as the challenge to drivers is concerned, the refueling ban actually makes life relatively simple for them, especially now that total fuel use is capped at 100kg. Given a heavy fuel load and a need to maximize economy, they have to drive to a delta in order to manage fuel consumption and tire degradation. I consider that a clerical exercise.

The real challenge is pushing a car to its absolute limit, and we rarely see that anymore.

(Personally, I think Christian Horner is somewhat using the media to lead a charge against refueling, because he knows chassis design is the only arrow in Red Bull's quiver, and it would behoove them to keep things as complicated as possible. Just my tinfoil-hat opinion.)

[f1316]

It's good to read this thread - I've been so pleased that they might overturn a ruling I've passionately disagreed with for 5 years and now will be even more disappointed if they don't.

But bhall has basically said so much of what I was going to rant about that now I don't need to

[enckboaz]

Overtaking is about performance differential,

agreed but what kind of preformance differential? let me explain:
if we have very similar car, the car in front of the row will be gaining little by little every single lap, leaving the car behind (which is slower, by a little margin, but slower) struggling in dirty air, without a chance to overtake.

If we have very different cars with greater gap, the car in front will be flying away. no overtake chances either.

This problem cuold be solved by:

1) off track elements: strategy, safety cars or, like in other racing sports, reverse the grid after qualifyng. These external factors create a temporary performance differential, allowing overtaking (like in the past 10 or so years)

2) drivers mistake/skills.

My point is that the car are too easy to drive but the margin of error is too narrow, everything is near perfection so the performance differential is too little to allow overtakes. But if a driver make one single mistake loses every chance to win a race.

If we watch the f1 of the eighties and before all the drivers make a lot of mistakes, the cars were more difficult to drive to the limit, the circuits were more difficult. As a result the gap between the cars during the races were bigger than today but easy to loose in a single lap.

The drivers were the main character of the spectacle.

We have to put the driver back in the spotlight.
Allowing refuelling, and create even more perfect cars, is not going to give the drivers more chances, but they will be robots even more, in a perfect car, thinking about absolute perfection and strategy. In this way the gap between the best driver and the worst will not emerge, not enough to make a chance to overtake.

my personal solution is to make heavier car, with less braking power, with very durable tires, racing in more difficult tracks. and no refuelling

[bhall II]

But bhall has basically said so much of what I was going to rant about that now I don't need to

Yeah, I do tend to monopolize the soapbox, especially lately.

if we have very similar car, the car in front of the row will be gaining little by little every single lap, leaving the car behind (which is slower, by a little margin, but slower) struggling in dirty air, without a chance to overtake.

If we have very different cars with greater gap, the car in front will be flying away. no overtake chances either.

That's precisely why I don't understand the fixation with overtaking. As a developmental series, there will always be firm performance gaps, and qualifying's natural tendency to establish a fixed hierarchy that places the faster cars in front of the slower cars will always make overtaking very difficult. I think the stupid little idiosyncrasies that have popped up over the years are the result of ill-advised attempts to counteract that basic, inescapable reality.

This is the definition of modern F1: controlled by short-sighted, self-absorbed morons, it's a regressive, highly restricted, and über-expensive race series dominated by cheap gimmicks and marketing demands and features ugly cars that lack visceral appeal and are only marginally quicker than those run in lower formulae at massively lower costs.

I can't imagine why it's hemorrhaging fans...

(I'm convinced the sport will have to collapse before people will take its problems seriously.)

[enckboaz]

completely agree.
But i consider refuelling one of that cheap gimmicks.

[bhall II]

And I consider in a no-brainer since it's likely the only solution that's fully consistent with the sport's disparate goals for quicker cars and greater efficiency. Most everything else comes as an either/or proposition.

But, hey, we're all special snowflakes.

[iotar__]

The point is the sport's misplaced priorities. Given the obvious willingness to spend megabucks on things that have no direct bearing on what happens on-track, a refusal to implement refueling on cost grounds is highly disingenuous.

Beyond that, if the ultimate goal of the 2017 overhaul is to make the cars five to six seconds quicker, why in the world would you not take advantage of what's most likely the easiest/cheapest change possible? That sort of baffling logic is every bit as mindless as the FIA's recent move to solve all the sport's ills with a ban on helmet livery changes.

They're not paying attention.

Refuelling is only change for the worse, it removes most of strategies and competitiveness in the beginning of races in exchange for illusion of speed. People advocating it should really re-watch older races and not rely on nostalgic memories.

I think people should also realize that correlation does not equal causation.

Most of the previous refueling era took place amidst a tire war that produced rubber specifically designed to give maximum performance throughout every lap of every stint. Fuel strategy then became the only strategy by default, and it became predictable because the engines were all the same.

In other words, it was exactly like current tire strategy.

I think those who have a problem with refueling actually have a problem with strict engine rules that don't allow for any variation. Because as long as cars have the same fuel consumption, which the current formula demands, refueling/not refueling is inconsequential. It can only make the cars quicker.

I think those who have a problem with refueling actually have a problem with strict engine rules that don't allow for any variation.

No, "those that something" does not apply to anything here. The reasons are from the real world and not assumptions about someone else thinking something. Refuelling is change for the worse for reasons stated 5 times already: unclear qualifying, unclear grid, low weight limited racing at the start racing, limited to non existent strategy, vacuum bubble races with drivers in their own universes, almost complete transparency when it comes to decisions of your opposition, fake races between differently weighted cars at the start and after pitstops.

it was exactly like current tire strategy.

No, it's not similar and has nothing to do with tyre wars. I think you if you look hard enough you will find everyone involved in F1 saying something opposite. Based on three simple premises:
- weight limited length of stints 100% from one side (you can't run without fuel) and pace related from the other. Very small and predictable window for stop which you can't really change much. Predictable race pace decides the number of stops with small variation of 2 against 3 from time to time.
- transparency they really knew when others were stopping, then you can add easily measured pace (less variables) and you have a full equation. Then nothing happens.
- for something in F1 to happen you need to create differences, refuelling removes them on many levels, smaller gap for set up between race and qualifying and therefore handling, weight at the start itself, weight/tyre combined with set pistops number - less wear, less differences, less strategy.

The real challenge is pushing a car to its absolute limit, and we rarely see that anymore.

No, it's your made up and not specific enough definition and your own made up criteria. Maybe some computer simulation competition would be closer to your ideal series. In the real world F1 is a racing series of people driving single seater cars in circles for money and entertainment. Everything else, tyres, engines etc. is up to discussion. For me as in every sport it's about competition, who can design a better car through talent and ideas and not just money resources and who is the better driver and not a driver of the better car. Customer cars and refuelling are changes for the worse in that regard. Same for overtaking, it's a major driver talent differentiator and a major example of challenge and driving on the limit (isn't it you requirement?). When it's impossible it does not matter who drives a car and there's a big difference between vacuum bubble racing and drivers competing with each other. The latter creates challenges and pushes limits.

This part is not directed at you but is a good example. When year or so ago Newey was complaining about restrictions using some similar made up ethos of F1 as an argument several people agreed with him. Now that half of the grid will receive copied cars I don't hear laments of restrictions for those engineers of stooge teams. Where is your and Newey's ethos now? Does it involve constructor teams building their own cars and competing?

[bhall II]

No, "those that something" does not apply to anything here. The reasons are from the real world and not assumptions about someone else thinking something. Refuelling is change for the worse for reasons stated 5 times already...

Yes, I'm fully aware there are reasons why you think refueling is a bad idea. Nevertheless, I've still objectively chosen to acknowledge the immutable reality that competitive strategies trend toward the optimum solution without exception.

If the cars are roughly the same, strategies will also be roughly the same, and refueling won't change anything.

You can accept that or not. But, it's not going away. This is Game Theory 101, and it's nothing new.

(Why did Ferrari switch from its iconic V12 to a V10 in 1996? Because V10s offered the optimum strategy at the time.)

No, it's your made up and not specific enough definition [of F1's real challenge] and your own made up criteria.

Point taken. Still, I'm far from the only one who holds such a view...

David Coulthard: Slow cars disillusion F1 drivers
Sebastian Vettel: Formula 1 needs to bring back fear factor
Fernando Alonso: Slow F1 took a wrong turn
Mark Webber: F1 cars need to be awesome again
Niki Lauda: F1 cars too easy to drive
Pedro de la Rosa: Modern F1 is too easy
Nick Yelloly: Easier than expected
Drivers welcome proposed regulation changes

[zeph]

As far as the challenge to drivers is concerned, the refueling ban actually makes life relatively simple for them, especially now that total fuel use is capped at 100kg. Given a heavy fuel load and a need to maximize economy, they have to drive to a delta in order to manage fuel consumption and tire degradation. I consider that a clerical exercise.

The real challenge is pushing a car to its absolute limit, and we rarely see that anymore.

Even in the 'good old' days top drivers would run out of fuel and throw away a victory. Driving to a delta is primarily because of the tires. They did that in 2012 and 2013, too, remember?

We're veering off-topic here, but the problem with that is more the hordes of eggheads on the pit wall with computers telling the driver what to do. A simple radio ban would solve that.

Personally, I'd rather have one-way comm from RC to driver (to inform them of flags, SC and penalties) and one-way comm from driver to pit wall (to let them know he needs to come in)., with no comm possible from pit to driver.

I remain of the opinion that refueling has no place in modern F1, and it would merely turn F1 into even more of a chess game.