Refuelling 2017

[SectorOne]

Again, several hundred spec series around the world as proof.
They also run on several hundred different racing circuits with great success.

Again...

The difference between Formula One and spec-series/karting is that performance differentials in F1 tend to reflect firm hardware advantages that don't get tired or make mistakes.

Put inherently faster cars, ones that are in no way wholly dependent upon driver talent to win, ahead of slower cars, which is a process that tends to unfold at each qualifying session, and you're simply not going to get a lot of overtaking throughout a race.

That's the inescapable difference between a developmental series and a spec series. It is what it is, and it cannot be avoided.

Which is exactly why you want cars of equal performance and not as sensitive to being in the dirty air.

[bhall II]

Fair enough.

[DiogoBrand]

I'll really like to see refuelling back, but the only thing that's certain is that the refuelling systems should be standardized in flow and have some improvement on safety. You want a competition on cars and drivers, and maybe even strategy, not on the team able to develop the best fuel pump. And if there is not a new system to avoid drivers launching with a hose attached to their cars, this new refuelling era has everything to be the shortest in history, probably being over before the end of the season.

[bhall II]

Say it ain't so, F1's Nick Chester.

The F1 Strategy Group’s plan to bring back refuelling in 2017 may have little effect on race strategies, according to Lotus technical director Nick Chester.

Refuelling was last seen in F1 in 2009 but could return after next season if the group’s plans are endorsed by the Formula One Commission.

However as it is already common practice for drivers to make at least two pit stops during a grand prix, Chester expects it won’t drastically change the pattern of races.

“It may not change the strategies that much as everyone will re-optimise for it,” said Chester.

According to Chester, the attraction of bringing back refuelling has more to do with making the cars quicker. “There has been a lot of talk to bring lap times down in 2017 and refuelling will do so by running less fuel in the first couple of stints during the race,” he said.

“It may mean that drivers can push a little bit harder on their tyres as they’d not carry as much fuel,” Chester added.

It would also mean the current two-second pit stops are likely to become a thing of the past. “The challenge would be to bring refuelling times down to the times we can do a tyre pit stop nowadays and that would prove quite difficult,” said Chester.

[iotar__]

"Won't change much" is a broad statement, it does not mean it won't change at all (for the worse) and it also means it's not a change for the better (pointless), only questionable upside is illusion of speed. That's why they tried it since slimming hybrids is difficult and they don't want to touch fuel saving (I guess?). I always said fixing speed is easy (horse power and aero is what's left), dealing with consequences is a different story.

As usual with those weird topics (speed, tyres and 100% pushing, predicted tragic reliability of hybrids) it's only a matter of time for reality to catch up:
"The return of refuelling to Formula 1 appears to have been all but killed off, after team representatives expressed unanimous opposition" http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-te ... eturn-plan
"It was also agreed that if refuelling came back it would again have to be on the basis of drivers qualifying on race fuel, a concept that the teams felt was not successful as it did not present a true picture of who had the fastest car." Other reasons, show (aka strategy), safety, costs. I don't believe it, they clearly didn't read this thread, or maybe they did .

P. Symonds http://www.planetf1.com/driver/3213/534 ... nt-help-F1
"Personally I am against refuelling because when we got rid of it, it was done on very solid grounds," the Williams chief technical officer told Motorsport.com."I was not a huge fan of it because we all got clever with it. We were all doing the same things and all the overtaking was happening in the pits.""You would do the last pit stop and then drive around until the end."
I'd say it was often the first stop (with limited options afterwards).

[bhall II]

Statistically, and even though it may not make one lick of sense, I think a stronger case can be made that refueling had a more positive effect on overtaking than has the refueling ban, since there's only a very minor correlation between refueling and any drops in overtaking. Otherwise, recent history shows us that downward trends, including the current one that began in 2011 and represents the sharpest decline the sport has experienced in the last 35 years, have been caused by something else. (Personally, I think that "something else" is homogenization.)



Despite DRS and Pirellotteri tires, if the current trend holds, F1 is perhaps two years away from sliding into the same abyss that prompted the formation of the Overtaking Working Group and ultimately led to what was probably the biggest regulatory overhaul in the sport's history.

I think the likelihood that teams will ever reach a consensus on how to best move the sport forward, including the question of refueling, is extremely low. The top teams that have the most political clout are deathly afraid to do anything that might upset the competitive order they've spent hundreds of millions to establish. As such, the answer to any proposal will always tend to be a resounding no; only the excuses will change.

Given actual overtaking trends, arguments against refueling that invoke strategy are bullshit.

Given paddock largesse, arguments against refueling that invoke costs are bullshit.

Given NASCAR's ability to successfully refuel its cars hundreds of times throughout every race, arguments against refueling that invoke safety are bullshit.

As always, it's really just commercial-grade self-interest.

[Tim.Wright]

Nascar have just increased the spec of safety equipment after a few incidents last weekend which resulted in team members being hospitalised.

http://www.motorsport.com/nascar-cup/ne ... o-pit-road

[bhall II]

Isn't that the best way to address a problem? F1 just surrendered, which is the only way to guarantee that nothing will improve. (And NASCAR still has an exemplary record when it comes to refueling safety.)

I'm not saying it will ever be 100% safe. But, it is safe enough that no one would bat an eye if it was politically feasible. That's how the idea made it out of the Strategy Group in the first place, yanno?

[dmjunqueira]

"Won't change much" is a broad statement, it does not mean it won't change at all (for the worse) and it also means it's not a change for the better (pointless), only questionable upside is illusion of speed. That's why they tried it since slimming hybrids is difficult and they don't want to touch fuel saving (I guess?). I always said fixing speed is easy (horse power and aero is what's left), dealing with consequences is a different story.

As usual with those weird topics (speed, tyres and 100% pushing, predicted tragic reliability of hybrids) it's only a matter of time for reality to catch up:
"The return of refuelling to Formula 1 appears to have been all but killed off, after team representatives expressed unanimous opposition" http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-te ... eturn-plan
"It was also agreed that if refuelling came back it would again have to be on the basis of drivers qualifying on race fuel, a concept that the teams felt was not successful as it did not present a true picture of who had the fastest car." Other reasons, show (aka strategy), safety, costs. I don't believe it, they clearly didn't read this thread, or maybe they did .

P. Symonds http://www.planetf1.com/driver/3213/534 ... nt-help-F1
"Personally I am against refuelling because when we got rid of it, it was done on very solid grounds," the Williams chief technical officer told Motorsport.com."I was not a huge fan of it because we all got clever with it. We were all doing the same things and all the overtaking was happening in the pits.""You would do the last pit stop and then drive around until the end."
I'd say it was often the first stop (with limited options afterwards).

Great news! Finally they came to their senses!
There are a lot of better ways to make the cars faster.

[Tim.Wright]

Isn't that the best way to address a problem?

In terms of risk management, they've done the minimum possible.



An adequate response from Nascar would have been to fix the hardware or at least change the rules to avoid these problems. Instead they've just mandated better safety gear.

Basically admitting that the hardware isn't safe, the procedure itself isn't safe and they can't or aren't willing to change either of these so the pit crew are going to need better fire protection because they are going to go up in flames again...

I'm not against risk - but its for the driver's to bear, not the pitcrew.

[tuj]

As I predicted.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119318

[PlatinumZealot]

They will change their minds when I send them my fuel pod dossier.

[bhall II]

In terms of risk management, they've done the minimum possible.

[...]

Basically admitting that the hardware isn't safe, the procedure itself isn't safe and they can't or aren't willing to change either of these so the pit crew are going to need better fire protection because they are going to go up in flames again...

I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the specific solution chosen or about what it may or may not represent. My point is that NASCAR didn't just raise a white flag and proclaim, "This is impossible!" It's not.

Refueling in motorsport isn't some exotic practice, nor is it merely the province of the criminally insane. It's common throughout racing series all over the world, and I'm pretty confident that actuarial data would show it's just as safe as any other aspect of motor racing.

In any case, it appears safety wasn't even an issue in the the decision to scrap the idea...

Surprisingly, perhaps the main opposition to refueling was on the basis that it would be detrimental to the show, rather than cost or safety.

Data analyzed by various team strategists and presented at the meeting provided solid proof that refueling would not improve the racing – for example, in 2010, the year after it was stopped, there were twice as many overtaking moves as in the previous year.

Solid proof, my ass.

I can understand how a casual observer might associate refueling with processional racing. But, for the life of me, I don't know how anyone can look at hard data and draw the same conclusion.

Again...



As teams converge upon the optimum, which tends to equalize performance, overtaking declines. This is borne out in three ways: the gradual shift to V10s from 1984 to 1996-1998; the optimization of Pirelli-putty tires and DRS strategy from 2011 to present; and the unique, near-complete arrest of all change during the first three years of the unique, near-complete arrest of all engine development.

I think the increase in overtaking in 2010 was less about the refueling ban specifically than it was about the change itself. Were it not for the introduction of stupid tires and DRS, there's no reason to believe that overtaking wouldn't have decreased in 2011 as a result of further optimized hardware and strategy for the no-refueling era, because nothing suggests that such optimization ever leads to anything other than parity.

So, now these boneheads want to develop the quickest cars the world has ever seen and needlessly haul around more fuel than is ever necessary for a routine stint between pit stops? Good luck paying for that ---!

(Too ranty?)

[SectorOne]

lies, damned lies and statistics.

[bhall II]

lies, damned lies and statistics.

If you can reasonably explain the systematic declines in overtaking that have occurred over the last 35 years in a way that justifiably identifies refueling as a prime contributing factor, I will personally rob Ft. Knox and deliver its contents directly to your front door.