Todt wants to bring back refueling in 2021

[zac510]

I agree with the other posters that this is no silver bullet to create exciting races.

Fortunately Todt is only encouraging a study to evaluate it, rather than a knee-jerk or emotional decision.

[NL_Fer]

With refueling and a smaller tank size, the amount if fuel would decide the length of the stint. There would be no more need to nurse the tyres for best strategy, like they do now. Look at WEC or FE, they still save fuel/energy by lift and coast, but corner and follow flatout because they don’t save tyres anymore.

But still, with refueling they can gain places with strategy instead of overtaking. The result is not much different.

And it was mentioned, flat out racing is also promoted with more available engines instead of 3. Better tyres or a tyre war and better aero for close racing.

I rather see a tyre war, instead of refueling and a little more engine power.

[marmer]

Bring it back but force Q3 to be race start fuel. Teams would run light to get pole but then be forced to stop early or same someone like red bull who has a decent gap back to the midfield could run heavy and go long in the race?

[jjn9128]

Bring it back but force Q3 to be race start fuel. Teams would run light to get pole but then be forced to stop early or same someone like red bull who has a decent gap back to the midfield could run heavy and go long in the race?

That's the rule which meant Schumacher has so few poles relative to Hamilton, as well as his own win tally. Also the rule which gave us the Trulli trains as Toyota went for the glory runs.

IF the cars can race wheel-to-wheel and IF the strategies get a little mixed up (as in Indycar where the field spreads between 2-4 stops) then it would certainly spice up the races. But the fuel rigs need to be a stock part given to all teams though, with harsh penalties for modifications (the reason for the Benetton fireball in '94). Likewise harsh penalties required for cars leaving the pits with the fuel hose attached as Massa in Singapore '08.

[FrukostScones]

I would welcome it back.
Maybe it won't give us better racing.
But definitely more exciting races and faster race cars for the spectators to watch.

[marmer]

Pro: Cars going flatout for a full race, no fuelsaving

That's not a given. Sure, they'll be a bit lighter, but will it be enough to mean that the cars can do the full race flat out on a total fuel weight equivalent to today's limit?

Doesn’t a lighter car shorten braking distances which means its harder to overtake? I prefer the lighter cars, I prefer the way they move and look on track. But will it actually have the desired effect? I remember the refuelling era, there was very little if any overtaking. It’s much better now.

Assuming the car trying the overtake is on better tyres or has less fuel on board due to different strategy the pace advantage should be bigger than it is now making the actual braking distance less of an issue.

It's not often you see cars gaining on others by more than half a second a lap under normal conditions. With less fuel or brand new tyres your looking at much bigger difference in pace between cars

[Big Tea]

Giving this more thought, It seems far more sensible and more 'bang per buck' to return to unlimited tyres. Just about all the plus points from low fuel can be obtained from a tyre advantage.
A return to 'qualli grade' through to non-stop endurance would open up more options than fuel.

[Dr. Acula]

Giving this more thought, It seems far more sensible and more 'bang per buck' to return to unlimited tyres. Just about all the plus points from low fuel can be obtained from a tyre advantage.
A return to 'qualli grade' through to non-stop endurance would open up more options than fuel.

Sure, but how realistic is that regarding Pirellis approach of "minimum development and expenses" policy they showed so far?

And when it comes to costs of the refueling equipment, i'm really on Todts side. They aren't that expensive. We see refueling in WEC and Indycar and nobody complains about the costs of these things there and they have teams with a lot smaller budgets than even the poorest F1 team.

[Big Tea]

Giving this more thought, It seems far more sensible and more 'bang per buck' to return to unlimited tyres. Just about all the plus points from low fuel can be obtained from a tyre advantage.
A return to 'qualli grade' through to non-stop endurance would open up more options than fuel.

Sure, but how realistic is that regarding Pirellis approach of "minimum development and expenses" policy they showed so far?

And when it comes to costs of the refueling equipment, i'm really on Todts side. They aren't that expensive. We see refueling in WEC and Indycar and nobody complains about the costs of these things there and they have teams with a lot smaller budgets than even the poorest F1 team.

It is the cost of taking the refueling kit around the world more than the cost of having the kit. There is a huge difference in a 'standard' refuel rig and the pressure monsters we saw (and saw fail) in the previous refuel period.

I am not anti refueling, neither am I pro refueling, but as Zak510says, looking at it is the right thing to do even if it happens to become implementing it is not the right thing to do.

Which ever 'gimmicks' they do come up with though, I hope they will be as options if required rather than 'Must do, every team,every race'

[strad]

After watching much of the 95 season yesterday I want V12s back and simple aero.

[TwanV]

Refueling was nice when there were teams that thought it bad sportsmanship to use tactics like Williams vs Benneton in 94. However f1 has never been duller then when all teams got the hang of tactics with zero overtakes in races.. Never again I hope, F1 is running in circles if this makes it to the rules. What's next.. TC? I remember being very very happy when the FIA got rid of these things.

[roon]

However f1 has never been duller when all teams got the hang of tactics with zero overtakes in races.

Race pace is the priority. Pit stop passing was proto-DRS. A way to safely maximize race pace and position. This is why DRS was introduced, why the teams like it, why it will likely say. Despite naysayers and occasional critique from drivers.

[digitalrurouni]

ES is 20-25 kg. Fuel tank could be halved and ES tripled for equal kerb weight.

yes and that ES weight has been the same since 2014. there are far too many minimum weights, all over the car. They should let Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault and Honda have a weight race, they can afford it

So much agree. Wonder why ES has stagnated. We need more powerful non ICE bits on these cars.

[izzy]

ES is 20-25 kg. Fuel tank could be halved and ES tripled for equal kerb weight.

yes and that ES weight has been the same since 2014. there are far too many minimum weights, all over the car. They should let Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault and Honda have a weight race, they can afford it

So much agree. Wonder why ES has stagnated. We need more powerful non ICE bits on these cars.

Yes sometimes they just don't seem to think clearly about things do they. In the beginning you can understand why they didn't want one team to waltz away with a huge advantage, but they need to update it. They could keep the same concept but with a smaller ICE and as you say more electricity, and while they're at it show us fans the ES state like they used to with KERS, like Ross said he was going to in 2017 but seems to have forgotten. Toto would fix it!

[marmer]

I personally think drs should be up to the drivers choice when and how they use it then it's not a fake overtaking aid it's just what its name implies lap times would be incredible.